Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Postcard Rate

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postage rate of 2d. for postcards has a discouraging effect upon the use of postcards as compared with letters, with consequent wastage of paper; and whether he will consider restoring the rate to ld. with a view to encouraging economy in this respect.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): It is estimated that, with the present-day re-use of envelopes with economy labels, the substitution of postcards for letters, which might be expected if the postcard rate was reduced, would have little effect on the total weight of paper used. I regret I cannot hold out any hope of reducing the postcard rate to ld.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Does the Postmaster-General not consider that the difference of only one halfpenny in 2½d. is too small to signify, and would he consider making a reduction of a further halfpenny to l½d.?

Mr. Paling: We have looked into this matter not only from the point of view of reducing the price to ld., but from all other angles.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Has the right hon. Gentleman no ambition to do anything for the public he serves? If he would give us 1½d postage on postcards his name would go down in history just like that of Sir Rowland Hill.

Mr. Paling: I have to take into account a lot of things besides ambition.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of what this concession would cost?

Mr. Paling: Between £3 million and £4 million.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the Postmaster-General tell us how much profit the Post Office made last year?

Newspaper Rates (East Africa)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet been able to devise cheap postal services to East Africa for newspapers.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: My hon. Friend no doubt refers to the possibility of carrying newspapers and other second class mail for East Africa by air at reduced air postage rates. This matter has for some time been under consideration, in consultation with the Ministry of Civil Aviation and British Overseas Airways Corporation, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to say when it will be possible to introduce such facilities.

Mr. Skeffington: Will the Postmaster-General bear in mind that the provision of adequate news from home is most important, and does he not agree that the present rate of 3s. for a daily newspaper is too high?

Mr. Paling: Those are considerations we have in mind.

U.S.A. Food Parcels

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that food parcels sent by persons in the U.S.A. to their relatives and friends in this country are often tampered with, as a result of which goods arrive in bad condition, not properly repacked, and with some of the contents missing; and if he will take steps to prevent the administration of import regulations resulting in goods being delivered in this condition.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the opening of parcels for customs examination. I can assure him that great care is taken by officers of the Post Office to replace the contents and repack the parcels before they are put in course for delivery. I regret that many food parcels from the


U.S.A. are in a damaged condition when they reach this country, because of faulty and insecure packing. Their rehabilitation is often very difficult, and here, too, our people do their best. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any case in which the instructions about repacking appear not to have been observed, I will gladly have inquiry made.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this trouble is not always due to bad packing and that very often small parcels inside a large one are tampered with; and in the light of these circumstances will my right hon. Friend make representations to whoever is responsible to ensure that the goods arrive whether they have to be examined or not, because many are missing?

Mr. Paling: We have been concerned with this matter for a considerable time. We are in almost constant touch with the overseas people to see if we can improve the state of affairs.

Mr. Lewis: Have customs officials anything to do with the state in which these parcels arrive?

Mr. Paling: I do not think so. This damage is mainly done in course of transit.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Can my right hon. Friend be quite certain that these parcels have not been tampered with before they were handed over to the Post Office?

Mr. Paling: That is one of the difficulties we meet occasionally.

Mr. Charles Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what percentage of the parcels is opened, and whether it is really necessary to open so many at present?

Mr. Paling: That is another question, of which I should require notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION PROGRAMMES (CINEMAS)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a full statement on the recent steps which have been taken and which are contemplated regarding the showing of television programmes to public

audiences in cinemas in the London area, indicating also the technical develop. ments which are taking place.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Discussions are being held between my Department, the B.B.C. and the film industry on the licensing, financial and other arrangements for the showing of B.B.C. television programmes in cinemas and the showing of films in the B.B.C. television programmes. The technical arrangements for showing B.B.C. television programmes in cinemas are a matter for the cinemas.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to give an assurance that his Department is doing everything possible to encourage the showing of television to the public in cinemas and elsewhere?

Mr. Paling: A committee is sitting at the moment, and the three interests concerned are trying to work out a scheme on this basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Attaches (Aircraft)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air in which countries British air attaches are provided with Service aircraft to he used in carrying out their duties; and which air attachés are without such aircraft.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Aircraft are provided in Czechoslovakia, France, Italy, Mexico, Persia and Yugoslavia, and an aircraft will be delivered in Siam next month. There are 22 countries in which air attaches are not provided with aircraft.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Under-Secretary realise that American naval and air attaches in practically every country have aircraft in which they travel; that British air attaches are at a complete disadvantage, many of them not even having bicycles; and will he look into this matter so that British prestige abroad can be maintained?

Mr. de Freitas: I realise some of the considerations to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred, but, in allotting what aircraft we have, we take into account the state of communications in the country concerned, and whether


the air attaché is accredited to other countries near it. We have not the resources which America possesses.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Is it not a fact that, in countries like the South American republics, where air attaches have to travel from one country to another, they have to do so in American aircraft, which is not good for the British aircraft construction industry or for British prestige abroad?

Mr. de Freitas: We are looking into the case of the South American air attaches at the moment.

Commissions

Mr. McAdam: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the number of officers' commissions granted during 1947 to ex-university students and those who have public school qualifications; and the number granted to those who have not passed through either a public school or university, respectively.

Mr. de Freitas: I regret that this information is not available. It could be obtained only by examining the papers of the 9,000 officers commissioned during 1947, and I do not think that the work involved would be justified.

Mr. McAdam: is the hon. Gentleman satisfied, from his personal investigations, that there is no discrimination between the different classes mentioned in the Question?

Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir, I am so satisfied.

W.A.A.F.

Mr. George Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will reduce the number of solo flying hours required by Air Ministry Pamphlet 236 for eligibility for the W.A.A.F./V.R., Flying, from 100 to 60 in view of the high cost of club flying and the present lack of private flying facilities.

Mr. de Freitas: My right hon. Friend is considering this point.

Mr. Ward: In considering this matter, will the Minister bear in mind two important factors—first, that the average cost of club flying today is about £3 an hour, and, particularly, that very few of these girls can afford the £300 to qualify;

and, secondly, as I am sure most flying instructors will agree, that pilots who have done 60 hours solo flying in the elementary stages are perfectly capable of going on to more advanced flying?

Mr. de Freitas: From my own experience of flying clubs; I know how expensive it is, and that point will be taken into consideration, as well as the other point which the hon. Member has made.

Mr. Cobb: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many applicants have come forward since 1st January, 1948, for commissions in the W.A.A.F.; whether these are sufficient to meet requirements; and what further steps are being taken to stimulate recruiting.

Mr. de Freitas: Three hundred and twenty-one. This is less than we need, but the field in which commissions can be granted has now been extended, and. when the new conditions of service are announced, I expect applications to increase.

Mr. Cobb: Does not my hon. Friend expect that these applications would increase much more if the difference in pay between a sergeant, at 84s. a week, and a junior officer, at about 54s. 10d. a week, was rectified?

Mr. de Freitas: My hon. Friend made a mistake there. If a senior N.C.O. is commissioned and her pay as an N.C.O. was greater than her pay as a junior officer, she gets her former pay—the higher of the two—plus ls. a day.

Mr. Cobb: asked the Secretary of State for Air what figure he estimates the average living expenses, including clothing and mess bills, necessarily incurred by W.A.A.F. assistant section officers.

Mr. de Freitas: Apart from messing, expenses vary widely according to personal tastes and circumstances, and there is no agreement as to what is necessary and what is not. I am sorry to say, therefore, that I cannot give an estimate.

Mr. Cobb: Does not my hon. Friend think that a fair figure for messing and clothing would be about 45s., and that, if that amount is deducted from the pay of 54s. 10d. of a junior officer, she has


only pocket money left? Does he not think that this matter requires investigation?

Mr. de Freitas: I would not agree with the figures which my lion. Friend has given. The extra messing is about ls. a day, and the monthly messing subscription is never more than half a day's pay.

U.S. Forces (Aerodromes)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will give a list of the R.A.F. aerodromes which have been placed wholly or partly at the disposal of the U.S. Air Force; and if he will state the number of U.S.A.A.F. personnel now stationed in this country.

Mr. de Freitas:: The aerodromes are: Burtonwood, Lakenheath, Marham, Mildenhall, Scampton and Waddington. There is also a headquarters at Bushy Park. The number of officers and men is about 5,700.

Mr. Warbey: Can the Under-Secretary say whether there is any precedent for this arrangement by which foreign combatant forces are stationed in this country in time of peace?

Mr. de Freitas: Not without notice.

Long Service Medal (Officers)

. Mr. Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will consider reducing the period of service in the Regular forces that is required to be served by officers before qualifying for the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal.

Mr. de Freitas: No, Sir. The medal is primarily for long service in the ranks, and my right hon. Friend does not consider the period of service required of an officer to be too long.

Levies, Aden Protectorate

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken to reorganise the Aden Protectorate Levies, in the light of the comments on their conduct made in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Disturbances in Aden in December, 1947.

Mr. de Freitas: The number of Royal Air Force Regiment officers in the Levies has been increased, and the force has been specially trained in anti-riot duties. In any emergency, it would work with the two squadrons of the R.A.F. Regiment which are now stationed in Aden.

Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact, that, mainly in consequence of the conduct of these Levies, very much damage was done to property in Aden and a large number of lives were lost? Would he say whether adequate compensation will be paid to the victims of the very tragic circumstance of that time?

Mr. de Freitas: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend in the matter? Has he all the information?

Mr. de Freitas: Any information on the subject will be sent to my right hon. Friend if he requires it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

West of England and Cornwall

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when he proposes to start an air service to the West of England and Cornwall.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Regular air services to the West of England and Cornwall are not included in the British European Airways Corporation's programme for the current year, and I cannot give any indication when they will be started.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, in 1946, over two years ago, the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland), during the passage of the Civil Aviation Bill, definitely asserted that this Bill would make possible for the first time a service to the West of England? What is the Minister going to do about it, and, if he is going to do nothing, will he let private enterprise do the job?

Mr. Lindgren: I am afraid that the earlier statements, quite frankly, were optimistic. There is a relationship between


air and surface transport and, in the present economic situation, air transport is provided to those places where the normal surface means of transport are difficult or arduous.

Mr. Beechman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the Summer Recess, I was officially informed that I could now fly to Cornwall for nothing, but, as there is no service, does not this leave me very much in the air?

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that his Department is behaving like a cross dog with a bone which does not want the bone and will not give it to anybody else?

Mr. Lindgren: If private enterprise wants to run a service, there is that possibility under Associate Agreements, and, if application is made, it will be considered.

Mr. Marshall: Thank you.

Mrs. Middleton: As the West of England would much prefer a nationalised service, would my hon. Friend look into the matter to see if the West Country could not be better served by this means?

Mr. Lindgren: The whole question is under review, but I would be misleading the House if I did not say that the installation of a service is not likely in the near future.

Brigadier Rayner: Has the hon. Gentleman yet realised that private enterprise would have provided that service two years ago?

Flying and Gliding Clubs

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding financial assistance to flying clubs.

Mr. Lindgren: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) on 3rd November.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Minister realise that the Straight Committee made its findings nearly a year and a half ago, and, in view of the semi-promises we have had in the last two years about flying clubs, will he do something about it and get an early decision

from the Treasury to support this very urgent need?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. We are doing all we can, but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, there are difficulties, and the Treasury does need some convincing.

Mr. Turton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will introduce legislation to make grants towards the maintenance and repair of the aircraft and equipment used for training by British gliding clubs, or if not what assistance he proposes to ensure that persons of moderate means can take part in the gliding movement.

Mr. Lindgren: As I indicated in my reply to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) on 3rd November, ways of helping flying clubs are at present under consideration, and the position of gliding clubs is being borne in mind in this connection.

Mr. Turton: Does the Minister appreciate that, meanwhile, only those with substantial means can afford to go in for gliding? As this industry gave so much to the Government during the war, both in machines and in personnel to train other people for gliding, will he make an early decision in this matter?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. The general relationship of air-mindedness to air transport is one of the considerations we have in mind.

Canadair IV Aircraft

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what steps are being taken to ensure that no unnecessary modifications are being insisted upon when purchasing the fleet of Canadair IV aircraft for use by B.O.A.C.

Mr. Lindgren: Modifications to the contract for these aircraft can only be made by Change Orders, agreed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation and Canadair, and, in the event of delay or further expenditure being involved, my noble Friend would have to be consulted. I may add that my noble Friend receives regular reports from both British Overseas Airways Corporation and Canadair on the progress of these aircraft.

Mr. Cooper: Does my hon. Friend recall the rather unnecessary delays which were introduced by the Corporation insisting on special modifications to the Tudor aircraft; and will he see to it that there are no similar delays in this case, particularly with regard to the flight engineer's position which, I understand, is under consideration? Otherwise, it will result in such delays as will cause the delivery of these aircraft to clash with the delivery of the Hermes aircraft.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, I think that lesson has been learned by all concerned.

Accident, Prestwick (Inquiry)

Mr. Emrys: Hughes asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if an inquiry was made into the recent crash of the Dutch air liner near Prestwick; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Lindgren: An inquiry into the Dutch Constellation crash near Prestwick on 21st October was begun on the morning of the accident by inspectors of the Ministry of Civil Aviation Accidents Investigation Branch. An accredited representative of the Dutch Government co-operated. My noble Friend has ordered a formal court investigation, which will take place in Scotland as soon as the necessary arrangements have been made. Until the Report of this court has been submitted, no further statement can be made concerning the circumstances of the accident.

Mr. Hughes: Could my hon. Friend tell us how long this inquiry will last, and whether, without prejudice to the Report, there is not already evidence to absolve the ground staff from all responsibility?

Mr. Lindgren: I would rather not make any observation. If a court of investigation is set up, it is far better that it should consider the evidence, and then give an opinion. As far as the length of the inquiry is concerned, that depends very much on our legal friends, whose investigations are often rather protracted. But I am not the one to criticise them for that, because we want these investigations to be full and factual.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (NAVAL BASE,YOKOSUKA)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what developments have recently been carried out at the Japanese naval base of Yokosuka; whether these developments have had the consent of His Majesty's Government and of the Far Eastern Commission; and how they are consistent with the policy of disarmament and demilitarisation of Japan.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): The former Japanese naval base at Yokosuka has been used since the beginning of the occupation by the naval forces operating in support of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers in Japan. I am informed that there is no truth in reports that Yokosuka has been converted into a modern naval base, and that such limited modifications as have been made there have been solely for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency of the United States naval vessels and for servicing visiting ships. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are fully satisfied that there has been no breach of the existing policies regarding the disarmament and demilitarisation of Japan and no special instructions have been issued to our representative on the Far Eastern Commission.

Mr. Pritt: Could the Minister reply a little more specifically to the Question —what developments have taken place? It is obvious that some developments have taken place.

Mr. Mayhew: There are minor and limited modifications being carried out to make the port efficient for the purposes I have mentioned. If the hon. and learned Member wishes, I will send him some further information.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATLANTIC PACT (DRAFT PROPOSALS)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the draft proposals for an Atlantic Defence Pact now under discussion between the Governments of the nations adhering to the Brussels Treaty and the Governments of Canada and the United States contains any provision by which any part of the


military forces of a foreign Power would be stationed on British soil in time of peace.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. No provision of this character has been discussed.

Mr. Warbey: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, if any such provision is proposed, it will not be accepted by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir, I will give no such assurance.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Could anything be better calculated to create confidence between the parties to a defensive agreement than that the troops of one signatory should, from time to time, as may be useful, be stationed on the territory of another?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (DEATH SENTENCES, APPEAL)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British delegates to the General Assembly of the United Nations to support the proposal now before the Political Committee of the United Nations Assembly for an appeal to the Greek Government to exercise clemency towards the ten seamen recently sentenced to death by a Greek military court.

Mr. Mayhew: There is no such proposal before the Committee. On 6th November, the Committee decided by 43 votes to 6 that it was not competent to deal with a Yugoslav resolution that it should call upon the Greek Government to take steps to prevent the execution of these ten men. The Committee by 41 votes in favour, none against (and 6 abstentions) resolved to take note of an offer by the Greek Delegation to discuss the question with the Chairman of the Committee; to express confidence that the Chairman would take appropriate action; and to proceed with its agenda.

Mr. Warbey: As, according to the information given by my hon. Friend, the United Nations have taken cognisance of this matter, will he now directly make use of the undoubted influence possessed by British representatives in Greece to ensure that the sentences imposed on these men are quashed?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir, our position remains as before. We cannot accept responsibility for the administration of Greek justice.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Customs Union (Inquiry)

29. Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in respect to the policy of a West Indian customs union or federation.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Considerable preliminary work has been done by the Chairman of the Standing Committee (Sir Robert Rance) since his appointment. The Chairman of the Commission which is to frame proposals for a customs union of the British Caribbean Colonies is due to leave for the West Indies on 16th November. The Standing Committee, which is to work out a scheme for closer union, for presentation to the legislatures concerned, will hold its first meeting on 12th November.

Mr. Reid: Is it not a fact that Sir Hubert Rance stated that federation in the West Indies is a political necessity, and will my right hon. Friend try to press on with this business as fast as possible?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. Considerable progress has already been made, and we shall do all in power to expedite matters.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Has Mr. Morgan Phillips insisted on this being a Socialist federation?

Mr. Scollan: Not yet, but we expect it at any minute.

Emigration to Liberia

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jamaicans or other West Indians have emigrated to Liberia.

Mr. Creech Jones: Sixtry-three Jamaicans have so far emigrated to Liberia.. I am asking the Governors of the other West Indian Colonies for the corresponding figures from those territories and will communicate them to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Reid: Does this "back to Africa" movement in the West Indies show signs of spreading?

Mr. Creech Jones: Oh, no. The experience in this particular case is exceedingly unfortunate for the people concerned.

Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say whether his figure of 63 includes the number of people who are already drifting back disillusioned, and could he say what their status will be, since they forfeited British nationality on accepting Liberian citizenship?

Mr. Creech Jones:: I would like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Driberg: Could I have an answer to the first part of my question? Does the figure of 63 include those who have already gone back to Jamaica?

Mr. Creech Jones: The information which has been supplied to me merely states that 63 is the number of people who have actually emigrated.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST

Executive Council (Africans)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Gold Coast Governor's proposal to appoint two Africans to his Executive Council was declined.

Mr. Creech Jones: In the course of a brief adjournment debate on 8th September, the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, while wholeheartedly supporting the proposal that a local committee should be appointed to examine the constitutional recommendations in the report of the Watson Commission, expressed the view that the appointment of two African members of the Executive Council with responsibility for groups of departments should be deferred. They felt that further time should be allowed to the unofficial members to study the Commission's Report and the statement on it by His Majesty's Government.

Airport, Accra (U.S. Aircraft)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what payment is being made by the U.S. authorities for the use of the airfield at Accra, Gold Coast, as a refuelling base for B29 Superfortresses.

Mr. Creech Jones: Fees for the use of the airport at Accra have been waived by the Governor in exercise of his powers under the Air Navigation (Colonies, Protectorates) Orders.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any limit will be set to the number of Colonies which will be laid open to the Americans as bomber bases?

Mr. Creech Jones: Perhaps I had better have notice of that question.

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in consequence of what provision and of what treaty or agreement is the airbase at Accra, Gold Coast, being made available for the refuelling of U.S. B29 Super-fortresses.

Mr. Creech Jones: The provision of facilities for the refuelling of these United States aircraft at Accra was agreed to by the Governor in response to a specific request by the United States Air Force authorities.

Beer (Import Licences)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that import licences for beer and stout from the United Kingdom have been refused by the Gold Coast Government, whereas these goods may be imported there from foreign countries without import licences; and if he will take steps to rectify this position.

Mr. Creech Jones: Up to last August, beer and stout could be imported into the Gold Coast from certain foreign countries, but not from the United Kingdom, under open general licence. Since August, however, imports from this country have been admitted under open general licence.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the Secretary of State aware that as a result of this action —probably resulting from the precipitate action of the Board of Trade about a year ago—the Gold Coast has now considerable supplies of foreign beer, to the exclusion of British brands?

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE

Commissioner-General (Speech)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he was asked to approve the text of the speech broadcast by the Commissioner-General from Singapore on 6th October.

Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Bearing in mind the claim that we so ostentatiously made about having given up Imperialism, is there no way in which we can stop these violent, irresponsible, and inflammatory utterances?

Mr. Creech Jones: I do not accept that description of this speech. In all the circumstances, it seems to me that the speech was very necessary.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman send congratulations to his officer?

Banned Film

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the film of "The Tale of Two Cities" has been banned in Singapore.

Mr. Creech Jones:: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) on 22nd September last.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister say if the ban on this film on the ground that it contains revolutionary scenes still holds good, and can he assure us that he will not have "Bonnie Prince Charlie "banned for the same reason?

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (OCCUPATION BACK PAY COMMITTEE)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has sent or proposes to send to the representations made to him by the Occupation Back Pay Committee in the Federation of Malaya.

Mr. Creech Jones:: I have not received the representations from the Occupation Back Pay Committee to which the hon. Member refers, but I understand that this body has submitted a petition to the

High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya, which he is now considering.

Mr. Gammans: Would the right hon. Gentleman do something to try to get this matter settled in view of the fact that it has now been going on for three and a half years, and is causing considerable dissatisfaction among Government servants?

Mr. Creech Jones: It was exhaustively examined and certain decisions were reached. It is arising out of those decisions that further representations have been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Railway Rolling Stock

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many locomotives and goods trucks have been supplied to Nigerian railways since 1st January, 1946.

Mr. Creech Jones: Thirty-four main line and 17 shunting locomotives, and 50 goods wagons have been supplied to the Nigerian Railways since 1st January. 1946.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he expects to be delivered in the form of this equipment in the near future?

Sir P. Macdonald: Is it not a fact that 20 have already been delivered and been found to be too heavy for the line, and, therefore, are not being used for moving the groundnuts which have been waiting for years to be moved?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is another question, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that his supplementary is based on a complete misconception. If he will put down a Question, I will give him the fullest information about it.

Mr. A. E. Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the railway transport has recently improved in Nigeria as a result of the availability of more locomotives and wagons; and what progress has been made in reducing the arrears in the movement of groundnuts.

Mr. Creech Jones: Although the position on the Nigerian Railways will


not be satisfactory until further locomotives and wagons now on order are delivered, there has already been an improvement, especially since 20 new locomotives came into service in June. The railways' capacity for moving groundnuts has increased from about 18,000 tons a month to a figure, which it is now hoped to maintain, of about 30.000 tons a month. Stocks of groundnuts in the Kano area, which were 267,000 tons at the middle of June, were 162,600 tons at the end of last month.

Medical Practitioners

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many doctors there are per head of the population in Nigeria; and what is being done to train Africans for the medical profession.

Mr. Creech Jones: There is one doctor for every 80,000 of the population. Nigerian students are coming to this country in increasing numbers, and there are now over 100 undergoing medical training here. The medical school in Nigeria has turned out 50 registered practitioners. Opportunities for training locally will be substantially increased, and a much larger output of qualified men will be achieved, now that medical teaching is to be taken over by the University College.

Mr. Davies: While recognising the improvements which are being made in the revision of salaries, may I ask if the Secretary of State will not recognise that in the field of medical administration the problem is particularly severe and distressing in Nigeria and the West Coast of Africa generally, and whether he will see to it that, at the earliest possible moment, more men are attracted by more reasonable salaries and better conditions?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is not a salary problem. We are doing all we possibly can to train doctors in the overseas territories. At the same time, an enormous contribution is being made by medical schools in this country, and everything possible is being done to enlarge the medical services in all the areas.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Is it proposed that this new university will grant degrees in medicine?

Mr. Creech Jones: Not until the university has established a proper standard. That will take some years. In the meantime London University will be of very great assistance in building up the academic standards of the university.

Dr. Segal: Will my right hon. Friend agree that what is a much more urgent need in Nigeria is the training of larger numbers of male nurses and dispensers? Will he not at the same time see that far more substantial provision is made towards meeting this need?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, that also has received consideration. It is quite a different question, but if my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will answer it. A great deal of new training is going on of nurses and of assistants in the clinics.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES

Maritime and Commercial Law

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes by means of the Maritime and Commercial Law Ordinance of 1948 in the Seychelles, to apply the law of England in all commercial banking, insurance and shipping transactions; what steps have been taken to ensure that the provision of the law of England in regard to these matters shall be brought to the notice of people in the Seychelles; and whether copies of the law can be seen in any public library in the Colony.

Mr. Creech Jones: As the reply is rather long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in
the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The Maritime and Commercial Laws Ordinance of 1948 was introduced by the Governor of Seychelles at the request of the commercial community. In maritime matters, English law is already in use, and the Ordinance is purely declaratory for the removal of doubt.

It is the intention that the law of Seychelles, in respect of commercial partnerships, companies, corporations, banking, insurance, bills of exchange and other negotiable instruments, bankruptcy


and the sale and carriage of goods, shall be, subject to the provisions of any enactment in force in the Colony, the law of England for the time being. Introduction of English commercial law will bring Seychelles into line with Mauritius, of which the Supreme Court is the Court of Appeal for Seychelles in commercial matters.

The Ordinance is an enabling Ordinance, and the relevant English enactments will be applied to Seychelles, with such amendments as may be necessary to meet local requirements, on dates to be proclaimed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council of the Colony. It is not the intention of the Governor to apply any English commercial law until copies of the relevant Acts of Parliament are available for publication in Seychelles, which will be arranged by means of distribution to Members of Legislative Council and to libraries, community centres, local government boards, and other centres accessible to the public.

Income Tax

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why taxpayers in the Seychelles have been asked to produce full statements of their living expenses between 1927 and 1947.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am informed by the Governor that, in a few cases where declarations of income over many years were obviously not in accordance with the standard of living or the known expenditure of the persons concerned, accounts for 20 years back have been called for in order to ascertain whether or not there had been persistent and regular tax evasion over a long period of years.

Mr. Gammans: Is not this whole principle of a witch hunt, which arises out of the incompetence of the Government, something quite repugnant to all ideas of British justice and administration?

Mr. Creech Jones: As the House already knows from previous Debates, there has been some difficulty in the collection of Income Tax in the Seychelles, but if there are any irregularities, obviously appeals to the courts can be made.

Mr. Harrison: Could the Minister associate some particular number with the word "few" which he has used?

Economic Development

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans are in hand for the economic development of the Seychelles with a view to raising the standard of life of the people in the colony.

Mr. Creech Jones: A 10-year plan for the social and economic development of the Seychelles was approved in principle earlier this year at an estimated cost of £325,000, of which £250,000 will be provided under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. This plan included provision for the development of fisheries and agriculture, livestock improvement and re-afforestation, and also for land settlement, at a total estimated cost of £90,000.

Mr. Dumpleton: Would my right hon. Friend say, in view of the low economic level of this Colony, whether he is satisfied with the progress of the plan, and whether it is being put forward sufficiently vigorously?

Mr. Creech Jones: This plan has been carefully thought out in the territory in consultation with the Government, and it does represent, I think, the maximum contribution which they themselves can make, supplemented by an overwhelmingly large contribution from this country.

Fisheries Research (Report)

62. Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how long there has been a fisheries research worker in the Seychelles; and when he is expected to report.

Mr. Creech Jones: Three research workers are engaged in a survey of the fisheries of the Mauritius-Seychelles area which is expected to take about two years to complete. The first arrived in June, 1947, and the other two in January and July, 1948. The first interim report has been received and is now being considered.

Mr. Dumpleton: Could not this work be rapidly completed, in view of the length of time it has been going on, so that development could be put in hand?

Mr. Creech Jones: This is rather expert work—the discovering of habits of fish and their movements, and so on. However, I think everyone is conscious that this ought to be hurried forward as rapidly as possible.

Education

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to develop adult education and mass education in the Seychelles.

Mr. Creech Jones: Education of the community by cinema, broadcasting and visual aids, such as posters, has been started. I am asking the Governor what further plans he has in view for adult education, and, when I have his reply, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Secondary Schools (Control)

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the terms of the recent agreement between the Seychelles Government and a religious denomination concerning the control of secondary schools built with the assistance of Colonial Development and Welfare Funds; and whether the Seychelles Legislative Council or the Advisory Council on Education were consulted before this agreement was concluded.

Mr. Creech Jones: As the agreement in question is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Neither the Legislative Council of the Colony nor the Advisory Education Council were consulted, as the agreement was merely an amplification in points of detail of the provisions for boys' secondary education included in the Ten Year Education Plan. This plan had already been approved by the Advisory Education Council and accepted by the Ten Year Development Programme Committee which included all the Unofficial Members of Legislative Council. The Committee's Report has been laid before Legislative Council.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case that this agreement will govern the general administration of secondary education for a very considerable time? If that is so, surely the representatives of local opinion should have been consulted?

Mr. Creech Jones: As far as possible in the Seychelles, local opinion was consulted.

Following is the text of the agreement:
His Excellency the Governor presided over a Conference at Government House at 9 a.m. on Saturday, the 21st February, 1948, at which the following were present:—

His Grace Archbishop Mathew, Apostolic Delegate.
His Lordship the Bishop of Victoria.
The Venerable the Archdeacon of Seychelles.
The Reverend A. G. Mathew.
The Reverend Father Egbert.
The Honourable Secretary to Government.
The Honourable Director of Education.

Unanimous agreement was reached on the following amendments to the portion of the memorandum on Educational Organisation in Seychelles relating to the Boys Secondary School, which was signed on the 28th June, 1945. (Certain provisions relating to the primary department were also unanimously agreed to and are incorporated):

(a) Site, buildings and equipment for a new College to be provided by Government and to remain Government property. A chapel or chapels to be erected on the school grounds. These to be erected by the denominations concerned, at their own expense, for the use of the pupils attending the College. 
(b) The College to be a Government School. The School to be managed by a governing body composed of—

(i) the Director of Education or his representative, Chairman; 
(ii) the Bishop of Port Victoria or his representative;
(iii) the Archdeacon of Seychelles or his representative; 
(iv) a representative of the Brothers conducting the College; 
(v) a representative of the past students of the existing and previous Boys Secondary Schools of the Colony, elected by the body of past students of such schools; 
(vi) four members to be nominated by the Governor.
(c) The Headmaster, who shall not be a representative under (b) (iv), shall normally be invited to attend all meetings of the governing body, but without a vote. 
(d) The Headmaster shall deal directly with the Director of Education in all matters concerning the administration of the school. 
(e) In the exercise of their powers the governing body shall observe the requirements of the Education Ordinance.
(f) The College, as from January, 1950, to be staffed by the Marist Brothers or other Order of teaching Brothers, together with Seychellois teachers, provided that the cadre of the staff shall be approved by the Director of Education.


(g) All the Brothers on the staff of the Secondary School shall be subjects of the British Commonwealth of Nations and university graduates with teaching diplomas, with the exception of one who may be a qualified teacher in handicrafts and junior general subjects. The Brother appointed as Master in charge of the Primary School to be a subject of the British Commonwealth of Nations and a qualified teacher. 
(h) The Brothers to provide five teachers in January, 1950, one of these to be the Master in charge of the Primary School. 
(i) The question of the introduction of further Brothers into the Primary School, at salaries in accordance with the scale payable to qualified Seychellois primary school teachers will be the subject of negotiation subsequent to the arrival of the Brother. A relevant factor in such negotiations will be the availability of qualified Brothers and of qualified Seychellois primary school teachers. 
(j) Government shall assume all financial responsibility for the school, all revenue from fees and other sources being paid to the Treasury. The governing body shall be at liberty to accept on behalf of the school gifts and grants towards the provision of scholarships, the erection and equipment of buildings, including the chapel or chapels, and towards other purposes connected with the school. 
(k) The salaries of the Brothers of the staff shall be fixed at £250 per annum for the Headmaster of the College and at £200 per annum for each of the other graduate or qualified teachers and for the Master in charge of the Primary School. These salaries to be a continuing flat rate. 
(l) A furnished staff house to be provided by Government for the Brothers after consultation with their superior as to plans. 
(m)The salaries of the Brothers and Seychellois staff to be paid direct to the individual teachers. 
(n) Fares from and to the United Kingdom and Canada or other parts of the British Commonwealth on first appointment and on completion of contract shall be paid by Government. 
(o) Six months leave, in addition to the period not exceeding the normal allowance for the time necessarily spent on the voyage, shall be granted to each Brother after completion of five years' service on the staff of the College, Government paying the return fare to the United Kingdom or Canada or other part of the British Commonwealth. 
(p) The religious instruction of the Roman Catholic students to be arranged by the Bishop of Port Victoria and that of the Church of England students by the Archdeacon of Seychelles. Religious instructions for students of other faiths
to be arranged by the heads of their respective communities. In accordance with a conscience clause appropriate arrangements to be made for students whose parents notify in writing their wish that they shall receive no religious instruction.
(q) The College shall be subject to the provisions of the Education Ordinance.

GAMBIA (PIG AND POULTRY PRODUCTION)

39. Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details of the project to establish pig and poultry production in the Gambia, including the amount of expenditure involved; the area to be cleared; and the estimated production in 1949 and 1950.

Mr. Creech Jones: I invite the hon. Member's attention to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on 3rd November.

PALESTINE POLICE FORCE (EX-MEMBERS)

Mr. Cooper-Key: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that ex-members of the Palestine Police Force have had to wait several months for their gratuities and leave and disturbance grants; that this delay is causing considerable hardship; what are the reasons for this delay; and what steps he is taking to expedite settlements.

Mr. Creech Jones: I much regret the delay, but it has been unavoidable because all records had to be transferred from Palestine to this country, and a new organisation had to be set up for computing leave entitlements and retiring benefits. The records were not received here until June and the task of extracting the necessary information was very heavy.
Payments of gratuities and disturbance grants have now been authorised for about two-thirds of the Force, and I hope that payment of the remainder will be completed by the end of this month. To minimise hardship, members of the Force received an advance of £60 on arrival in the United Kingdom, and monthly advances of salary were authorised pending final computation of entitlements.

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements he has made to facilitate the entry of ex-members of the Palestine Police Force into civilian employment in this country.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what purpose is


served by the Information Office of the Palestine Police in Victoria Street. London, S.W.1.

Mr. Creech Jones: Since January last the Palestine Police Office has been used as a resettlement bureau and advice centre to assist members of the Force in finding employment and to deal with welfare and other matters arising out of the disbandment of the Force. Men are, however, advised to register also at the Ministry of Labour local office or, where appropriate, Appointments Office, nearest to their place of residence.

Sir R. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men wished to serve in the Armed Forces and were not allowed to do so? At present they are at considerable disadvantage compared with ex-Service men. Why cannot his office give them facilities comparable to those granted to ex-Service men?

Mr. Creech Jones: I should like to have notice of that question, because I am not aware of this restriction.

Sir T. Moore: Why not transfer these men to Malaya and the Malayan Police Force, where, obviously, they are urgently needed?

Mr. Creech Jones: A very large number of them have volunteered for service in Malaya.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Although this office is doing work, as the Secretary of State says, why is it necessary to have a notice displayed outside, "Join the Palestine Police Force"?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not responsible for that.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Seditious Document (Sentence)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what circumstances F. Kibuke Musoke was sentenced to six months imprisonment in Uganda for publishing a sedious document; what was the nature of the document; and what parts of it were held to be seditious.

Mr. Creech Jones: I would refer to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member

for Stroud (Mr. Parkin) on 22nd September, 1948. F. Kibuke Musoke is one of the persons referred to in that reply. The sentence of six months hard labour passed on him has been reduced, on appeal, to three months. The trial magistrate adjudged the document to be seditious as a whole.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publishing in this case consisted of circulating a letter written by Semakula Mulumba, of Uganda, to Bishop Stewart, of Uganda? In view of the fact that copies of that letter are in the possession of Members of this House, would they be in danger of receiving the same penalty if they circulated it?

Mr. Creech Jones: This case has gone to the High Court on appeal, and the decision of the lower court has been upheld. The person concerned was found guilty on, three counts— importing a seditious publication, being in possession of it, and publishing a seditious publication.

Mr. Pritt: Would the right hon. Gentleman put a copy of the document in the Library?

Newspaper Articles (Prosecution)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the charges against the editors of the vernacular newspapers "Gambuze" and "Mugobansonga" in Uganda; and what is the nature of the seditious matter alleged to have been published.

Mr. Creech Jones: The editors of "Gambuze" and "Mugobansonga" were recently convicted of printing and publishing seditious articles. I have asked the Governor for the information requested in the second part of the Question and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend say whether one of the alleged seditious articles consisted of a letter signed by 14 people asking for the resignation of the present Chief Minister of Uganda?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not in possesion of that information, but I have written to the Governor asking for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Africans

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Defence if he will consider the raising of an army of Africans in order to strengthen the Empire's strategic reserve and fill the place left vacant by the Indian Army.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I have been asked to reply. I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, who has been delayed. The hon. and gallant Member is aware of the existence of local forces in East Africa and West Africa. Their future size and composition are under constant review. On grounds of population alone, no comparison can be drawn with India.

Brigadier Rayner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there exists a pool of 16 million East Africans, of whom 200,000 received some military training in the last war? Is he also aware that Major-General Dimoline, who has just returned from being General Officer Commanding East African Command, has given as his opinion that a first-class force could be provided out of those men if they had good British officers to lead them?

Mr. Whiteley: As I pointed out, this matter is under review, but of course there cannot be any comparison between the manpower of India and that of East Africa.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend that a statement on this vitally important matter should be made very soon?

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was two years ago when the Secretary of State for War told this House that an early decision would be made on the question of recruiting a Colonial Army? Surely we ought not to have to wait such a long time?

Junior Officers (Pay and Allowances)

Mr. Cobb: asked the Minister of Defence if, when considering the pay and allowances of junior officers, he will also

bear in mind the pay and conditions of the junior officers in the Women's Services.

Mr. Whiteley: I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cobb: When considering this matter, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of these junior officers have to exist on a very small income of 64s. 10d. per week?

Mr. Whiteley: Yes, I heard my hon. Friend make that suggestion in an earlier Question, and note was taken of it.

Pay Code

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the conclusions reached through the investigation into cases of hardship under the Services Pay Code.

Mr. Whiteley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend gave last week to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble).

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Potatoes (Pig Feeding)

Mr. De la Beré: asked the Minister of Food whether he will consider purchasing the surplus potatoes before they deteriorate and converting them into potato meal suitable for pig feeding.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): Surplus potatoes are already being bought by my Department for processing into stock feed as well as for human consumption, and priority is being given to stocks which are liable to deteriorate.

Mr. De la Bére: Does the Minister fully appreciate the urgent need to increase the pig population and to provide more bacon? Why did not the Government take steps earlier to make the processing machinery available so that more supplies would now have been available? Is he aware that there is now one miserable ounce of bacon a week? Why do we not increase our own bacon supplies?

Dr. Summerskill: That is what we are doing.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the hon. Lady give any indication of the extra cost to the Exchequer arising from the decision which she mentioned in her answer?

Dr. Summerskill: That is another question.

Sugar (Press Announcement)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Food why Sir William Rook, one of his officers, informed the "Evening Standard," about 26th October, that an announcement about sugar was expected soon; and why the announcement was made only to one newspaper and not through the normal Press channels to the whole of the Press.

Dr. Summerskill: On his return from America, Sir William Rook was questioned by several newspaper reporters as to whether, and if so when, my right hon. Friend would make an announcement on the results of his mission. He replied that an announcement might be made soon.

Mrs. Middleton: Could my hon. Friend explain why it is permissible for a public servant to give to one newspaper alone what that newspaper itself describes as a scoop, and so enable that newspaper to stage a campaign which makes it seem as though the Minister in making a subsequent announcement bows to the wishes of that newspaper, which, as we know, is quite apart from the truth?

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think it is as complicated as my hon. Friend thinks. Sir William is a very nice, courteous man. He was met by a number of reporters— we have all had that experience— and I think the "Evening Standard" describes him as behaving like a cautious Whitehall civil servant. He was courteous in so far as he said that an announcement would be made, but he also said that he would not predict whether it would be a pleasant or an unpleasant announcement. He said that was a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Middleton: Nevertheless, I must ask whether my hon. Friend does not agree that if announcements of this kind are to be made, they should be made to the generality of the Press and not to one or two selected newspapers?

Dr. Summerskill: As I have already told my hon. Friend, a number of reporters met Sir William.

Snoek

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Food what contracts or arrangements are now in existence for the provision of snoek.

Dr. Summerskill: Five contracts are in existence for the provision of snoek. Under these, a balance of 35,500 cases will be shipped this year.

Sir T. Moore: While we are on the subject, could the hon. Lady give a few hints as to what tasty dishes may be made out of this raw material?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly. If the hon. and gallant Member likes to come and see me tomorrow, I will tell him.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Although this Question purports to show an interest on the part of Ayr Burghs in this commodity, is the hon. Lady aware that as far as snoek is concerned the rest of Scotland could not care less?

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Would my hon. Friend consider christening the snoek by some more appetising name?

Catering Licences

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Food whether he will direct food executive officers to report what proportion of applications for catering licences have in the last 12 months been granted and refused for licensed and unlicensed premises respectively; and whether he will publish the figures for each county Or region in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid the amount of work involved to extract such figures would be excessive. The results would not in any case show how many public houses had received licences, since licensed restaurants, clubs and hotels would also be included.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling amongst licensed victuallers that in their applications for catering licences they are being unfairly treated in comparison with cafés? Is he aware that that feeling is encouraged by a letter which, as the hon. Lady knows, was written by one of the food


executive officers to a licensed victualler who applied for a catering licence, in which the food executive officer said that, on the advice of the Ministry, unless a strong case could be made out that the granting of a licence would reduce queues at cafés and restaurants, it could not be granted?

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think there is any basis for complaint. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that everybody, including licensees of public houses and fish friers, would all like a little bit more and all of them will argue that they have been unfairly treated.

Mr. Keeling: What about the letter I quoted?

Mr. J. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that her Department have dogmatically adhered to the principle that they will grant licences only in cases where there is a consumers' need and, in the circumstances, will she be quite sure that the test of consumers' need applies equally to small cafes and to licensed premises?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Harrison: Is it a fact that the number of licences granted to licensed premises during the last two years has increased considerably by comparison with the previous two years?

KENYA (OFFICIALS, LAND OWNERSHIP)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many senior Government officials in Kenya own or lease land in Kenya; whether he is aware that if an official buys land he is regarded by public opinion as having identified himself with settler interests; and whether this practice will now be prohibited.

Mr. Creech Jones: I do not know how many senior Government officials hold land in Kenya, but I am aware that some of them acquire residential plots in order to settle there after retirement. The permission of the Governor in Council is required in every case. I am satisfied that there is no abuse and I see no reason to change the present procedure. I cannot accept the view that the acquisition of land by officials identifies them with settlers interests.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer means that the Governor in Council is giving himself land and that that practice is spreading to senior officials, causing serious discontent in Kenya, because the Africans are of opinion that it means that the Government are identifying themselves with settler interests and cannot avoid being partial?

Mr. Creech Jones: I do not accept the view which has just been expressed by my hon. Friend. There has been no abuse and the Governor has behaved with perfect propriety. There has been no irregularity in this matter at all.

Mr. T. Reid: Is it not a fact that a great many officials, indeed most of the officials, in the Colonies are natives of the Colonies? Surely my right hon. Friend does not intend to prevent natives of the Colonies from acquiring land or to discriminate between native officials and European officials?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Official News (Press Notices)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far it is the practice of his Department to grant exclusive use to particular newspapers of information forwarded through official channels by his officers in colonial territories.

Mr. Creech Jones: On the contrary, the Information Department of the Colonial Office is most eager to disseminate on the widest possible basis all information concerning colonial matters. If the hon. Member will let me know of any particular instance he may have in mind I will certainly make full inquiries and communicate with him.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that wholly satisfactory answer with the fact that on 4th September the information officer in Nigeria sent to him a telegram beginning with these words:
 Under-Secretary suggests this exclusive for Reynolds' and Herald' "?

Mr. Creech Jones: I shall have to look into this particular case, but I imagine the reference is to an item of interest


regarding the spread of co-operation in Nigeria and, accordingly, would be of special interest to the readers of "Reynolds."

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to suggest that information in regard to co-operative movements in the Colonies is of interest only to readers of "Reynolds" newspaper? In view of this very extraordinary occurrence, will he investigate it thoroughly and tell the House exactly how this matter has arisen?

Mr. Creech Jones: Of course, cooperation is of general interest, or should be of general interest, to the public. I have made a statement that, in regard to any information brought to my notice, I will make inquiries.

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend also investigate at the same time the apparent leakage of official information from his Department which led to this Question being put down?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House or would it be more convenient if I put a Question to him in, say, a fortnight's time?

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Gentleman should put a Question down.

Service Vacancies

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what special steps are being taken to fill the large number of vacancies in the Colonial Service, and particularly in East and West Africa.

Mr. Creech Jones: The main shortages are in those professional and technical services where demand in this country is also unsatisfied. Improved salaries have been introduced in both East and West Africa. Those in East Africa have been announced within the last few months and further improvements are now under consideration in West Africa. Booklets describing the Colonial Service are being rewritten and will be given wide publicity, and plans are being drawn up to extend scholarship and probationership training schemes to certain branches of the Colonial Service not previously covered.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: When does my right hon. Friend hope to be in a position to reply to this and other matters that were raised in the recent Report of the Select Committee on Estimates?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think the Colonial Office has discharged its responsibilities in regard to the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS (EX-SERVICE MEN)

Mr. Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to improve and unify vocational training for Colonial ex-Service men; why no rehabilitation scheme or vocational training has yet been undertaken in British Honduras; and what steps are being taken to alleviate the present problems of mass unemployment and poverty in British Honduras.

Mr. Creech Jones: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Cooper: While I appreciate that there will be a fuller statement on this matter, may I ask if my right hon. Friend realises that I have been following this up now for a period of nearly 12 months and that my latest information indicates that only some 12 ex-Service men have benefited through any schemes which the Colonial Government are launching? Does not he consider this to be a matter of extreme urgency which needs to be tackled much more vigorously than my information indicates it is being tackled?

Mr. Creech Jones: I wish my hon. Friend would wait until he sees the reply. His figure of 12 is by no means correct. There are various schemes; for instance, one immediate scheme in respect of 35 men and another concerning 100 men.

Mr. Cooper: There are something like 1,000 men unemployed in the Colony and the figures given show a rather small effort in view of the size of the problem.

Mr. Creech Jones: I would ask my hon. Friend to read the reply.
Following is the answer:
Vocational training in the Colonies must depend on local conditions and uniform arrangements would not be practicable. Schemes for such training of


ex-Service men have, however, been provided in a number of Colonial territories and Colonial Governments know that I should be glad to consider, in consultation with them, any suggestions for the improvement or extension of such schemes. In the case of British Honduras, men who did war service in the United Kingdom were covered by a Colonial Office scheme for further education and vocational training similar to the Ministry of Labour scheme for U.K. ex-Service men.
The main difficulty in absorbing ex-Service men into civil occupations in the Colony has been that there were comparatively few openings for persons trained for a skilled trade. In consequence, there is no general scheme for vocational training, although the needs of ex-Service men in respect of employment have been a preoccupation of the Governor in British Honduras. Efforts have been made to absorb the men into agriculture and such other kinds of work as are available. The proposals for the purchase of land for resettlement to which I referred in replying to my hon. Friend on 9th June have recently been put into effect. This scheme is expected to employ 35 men by the end of the year and about 100 men in 1949. I have also recently approved a scheme to employ ex-Service men on clearing and levelling some 40 acres of land in the neighbourhood of Belize, with a view to development.
Other projects are being studied, but I must add that the ultimate answer to the problem lies in major economic development, recommendations for which are made in the Report of the British Guiana and British Honduras Settlement Commission which is being presented to the House today.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (JEWISH REFUGEES, LUGGAGE)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that luggage of Jewish refugees who had been permitted to proceed from Cyprus to Israel had been broken open and the contents scattered and damaged by being pierced with bayonets; and what steps he proposes to take in respect of this.

Mr. Creech Jones: Suspicious luggage belonging to Jews leaving the camps in Cyprus for Palestine is examined in order to recover stolen camp property and to

detect concealed men of military age, more than one of whom have been found hidden in boxes. I am informed that the search is conducted with care, and that allegations of damage are unfounded. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Janner: Would my right hon. Friend read the Question again? It does not refer to men of military age at all. It refers to men and women who were permitted, in consequence of the fact that they were not of military age, to proceed to Israel. Would he say why those people, who have been persecuted sufficiently long, should be subjected to the indignities that are alleged here? Will he inquire into this matter, and see to it that they are returned, if that is necessary, in a dignified way, and that they are not treated like this?

Mr. Speaker: That is a speech and not a question.

Mr. J. Lewis: Would my right hon. Friend say whether, when it is suspected that there is a person of military age concealed in the baggage, it is the custom to pierce the baggage with a bayonet?

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Could my right hon. Friend say how many Jewish refugees there are still in Cyprus?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is another question. Between 8,000 and 9,000. I think.

Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend investigate this matter? This is an extremely serious allegation, and an extremely serious position.

Mr. Creech Jones: As I have said, the allegations so far made have been unfounded, but if information can be brought to my notice I shall accordingly cause investigation to be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

COLONIAL LOANS BILL

"to authorise the Treasury to guarantee certain loans by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to the Governments of colonial territories," presented by Mr. Creech Jones; supported by Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. Rees-Williams; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

Orders of the Day — WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.32 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is in essence what might be called a utilitarian or workaday Bill. Its provisions are not concerned with any great departure of national policy, nor do they represent the hobby-horse of one particular party or another. They aim simply at making more effective a very necessary, troublesome and complicated job of work which the Post Office has to carry out to the best of its ability for the benefit of the public. The Post Office has—as, I admit, I myself was surprised to learn when I became Postmaster General—vast fields of necessary activity which, in spite of their importance, are little known to the general public. This Bill governs one of the lesser known services which it is the duty of the Post Office to perform.
I had hoped that it would be possible for the Bill to be discussed by the House on what I might call a quite dispassionate basis. Much, if not most, of it deals with matters of a highly technical nature, and a political or controversial discussion is not the best way of dealing with such technical matters. But I am aware that there has arisen some controversy about some of the provisions of the Bill—based, as I hope to show later, on what I feel is a misunderstanding of our purpose and of its object—and it is possible that we may not have quite the cool, dispassionate discussion that the subject really demands and justifies. With the House's permission, therefore, I propose not to go into equal detail on all the provisions of the Bill. It is in three parts.
The first part of the Bill—Clauses 1 to 8—is little more than an up-to-date restatement of a piece of existing legislation, mainly of an Act which will have become familiar to the oldest Members here from their earliest days in the House. I refer to the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904, a temporary Act which has appeared every year since 1909 in the Expiring Laws Continuance

Act. Incidentally, I believe that this is a record. It is at least a recognition by Government after Government in this House of how great the need is for legislation of the kind dealt with in Part I of this Bill to become a permanent part of the Statute Book. It also indicates the difficulty of legislating permanently on this subject.
The 1904 Act has done yeoman service, and it is a great tribute to its framers that we have been able to go on for so long under it without running up against some insuperable difficulty. The Government have introduced this Bill because they recognise that it is an anomaly that the Expiring Laws Act should be used year after year in this way and because they feel that the legislation requires bringing up to date.
In point of fact, developments in the wireless field caused the shoe to begin to pinch at a comparatively early date, and in 1925 one of my predecessors did introduce—as many hon. Members will no doubt remember—a Wireless Telegraphy Bill. I think that it is probable that some of the provisions of that Bill were at the time premature, and it was withdrawn. During the years that followed, the shoe began to pinch still more, and the Ullswater Committee on Broadcasting in 1935 made certain recommendations, to which I will return later, which caused another of my predecessors to begin to prepare another Wireless Telegraphy Bill. However, the war came on us before we were ready, and the matter had again to be shelved until the present time. Now, the shoe is beginning not only to pinch, but to hurt. There have been tremendous developments of every kind in wireless technique during the last 10 years—the war of course was a most powerful stimulus—and it has become absolutely essential to bring the law more into line with the present state of affairs.
Part I of the Bill deals with broadly the same problems and covers the same field as the 1904 Act and the minor subsequent
Acts of 1925 and 1926. A great many
services which are today taken entirely for granted by people generally are performed by the Post Office under powers derived from this Act. One buys a wireless licence as a result of arrangements made by the Postmaster-General under the 1904 Act. Wireless stations on ships and their operation are controlled


by my officers under powers permitted by that Act. The B.B.C.s licence to broadcast derives from the powers given to the Postmaster-General under that Act.
We have undertaken in international telecommunication agreements not only to license wireless telegraphy transmitting apparatus and to exercise other controls, but also to take steps to prevent interference with radio services. Indeed, the need for control of wireless signals is, I believe, widely acknowledged and such an accepted fact that I do not feel that I have to argue its need again here. All I would like to do is to tell the House briefly the main ways in which Part I of the present Bill differs from the Act of 1904. I think the House will find them extraordinarily small.
First, the definition of wireless telegraphy which has to be licensed is extended to include the control of machinery at a distance by wireless—the actual reference is under the interpretation Clause, 18 (1). This is an extension of the definition which I do not feel needs to be explained or defended. An aeroplane recently crossed the Atlantic entirely under remote control by wireless—and this covered both the take off and the landing—and in this Bill we are simply marching with the times. The first part of the Bill provides also for charges for licences to be in general prescribed by regulations, subject to negative Resolution of either House. Members will, of course, be aware that at present such charges are fixed without being laid before Parliament.
This Bill defines more precisely the right of British subjects to be granted licences for the purpose of scientific research, but foreigners will no longer get such a licence as a right. For obvious reasons, too, the Bill also makes it an offence to refuse to surrender a dead transmission licence on demand. The first part of the Bill also makes it an offence to send certain forms of misleading messages or to intercept or disclose certain messages without authority. This also is a provision which, I suggest, needs no explanation or defence here. The matter is put beyond cavil by the close dependence on wireless of life and safety at sea and in the air, and by the justifiable right to privacy of persons properly using wireless as a means of communication.
Finally, I need hardly say that the Bill repeats the essential provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons Facilities) Act, 1926. I do not propose to say any more this afternoon about Part I of the Bill. There will, of course, be other opportunities to discuss its provisions in detail, but I should like at once to turn to Part II of the Bill, which covers ground that was not covered in the 1904 Act.
I will freely admit that Part II of the Bill, dealing with remedies against wireless interference, is, shall I say, experimental in a sense that Part I is not. In drafting Part I we have not only had behind us the old Act, but we have had the years of experience of working on the lines down in that Act. In Part II of the present Bill we are proposing to place something new on the Statute Book. My own personal view is that we are attempting it in the right way—otherwise, of course, I should not have presented it in this form to the House.
As hon. Members are aware, my proposals have already been the subject of severe unofficial criticisms. These criticisms have not yet had to stand the test of detailed dispassionate examination, such as the provisions of this Bill will receive in this House. When they do, I think it will be found that a great deal of what has been said has been based on misunderstandings. But, however this may be, in a matter so novel as this one my mind is open to any suggestion for an alternative means which will achieve the same end as the provisions criticised, for this end is merely to protect the public, and hon. Members can be assured that I am prepared to consider very carefully all the suggestions put forward at any stage of the Bill.
Before I enter upon a detailed discussion of Part II of the Bill I think it might help if I gave the House a brief picture of the problem and what happens at the present time. The Post Office is at present receiving from members of the public about 40,000 complaints a ye4r about electrical interference with reception of wireless broadcasts. In fact, there is such a volume of complaints that for many years we have had to use a special form which the complainant fills in and hands in at the local post office. Of course, as the Minister responsible for wireless telegraphy in all its


forms, I have a duty to see that the legitimate use of wireless equipment is not subjected to irresponsible nuisances. It is really on this understanding that the whole of my moral responsibility rests in the matter of interference. But I have also the responsibility in the international sphere, which I have already mentioned.
This interference nuisance, by the way, is not new, and nor are our methods of dealing with it. Even before the war it was becoming formidable, and as early as 1935 the Ullswater Committee on Broadcasting said in their report, in connection with electrical interference:
 We trust that the technical investigations and discussions of this matter, which have extended over two years, will be completed as soon as possible; and if the result is to show that the Postmaster-General (or other appropriate Minister) needs further powers for the purpose of protecting the listener, subject to suitable safeguards, we trust that the requisite powers will be sought.
The nuisance caused by electrical interference is growing, and with the increase in the use of electrical apparatus and wireless complaints will continue to grow. How many uncomplaining sufferers from this nuisance there may be I do not know, but I think they are entitled to at least equal consideration. In a recent case, where there were only two complainants, we found out that 250 people were suffering.
At present, when a complaint is sent in it goes to a special section of my Engineering Department, where it is investigated as speedily as we can manage with the limited number of skilled men available for the work. The complainant is visited, and our engineers test his equipment and try out his wireless set to make sure that the root of the disturbance is not in the equipment itself. But in by far the majority of cases the interference comes from outside, and then our engineers have to try to find out where it is coming from. This is a skilled job, but often a difficult and complicated one, but in the end they usually trace the interference to some piece of what is very often quite ordinary electrical equipment—such as a vacuum cleaner or a bed warmer.
I have spoken here of one complainant, but it frequently happens that that complainant will be but one of a group of

people in the same neighbourhood all affected by this one piece of electrical apparatus. Our engineers will then visit the owner of the suspected apparatus, explain what is happening to wireless receivers round about, and ask—if they are not invited, as they mostly are—if they may come in and look at his machine. If what they find confirms what they had already suspected they suggest steps by which the owner could stop the apparatus creating interference. The most usual way in which this can be done is to fit small condensers or inductances into the circuit feeding the appliance. Generally speaking, these devices are not expensive.
In the great majority of cases, where people are approached like this, they readily agree to co-operate by fitting the device and putting an end to the nuisance. But, unfortunately, there is a very small number of people in this world who are never prepared to agree to do anything. In this business, too, we meet them, and at the moment there is nothing whatever we can do about it. We can tell them that their apparatus is interfering with their neighbours' wireless reception, and there the matter has to stop—and he interference goes on. I could tell the House of numbers of cases which I see personally, and of representations which hon. Members make to me on behalf of constituents who are suffering in this way from the selfishness of a few. I have met cases where there was even, apparently, a spiteful motive, but yet where I could do nothing.
Perhaps I might digress here to mention television. I think it has been suggested that the problem of interference is a very small and restricted one because it affects mainly television. This is not so at all. It is true that television is particularly vulnerable to certain kinds interference, but I can assure the House that these complaints of which I have spoken come from all over the country and that as yet a comparatively small proportion of them concerns television—actually only one in about 15 at the present time.
So far I have been talking of interference mainly as though it affected home listening. I should not like to call home listening a luxury, seeing that there are more than 11 million households with wireless receiving sets—something like


five out of every six in the country; but it is—or at least aims at being—a pleasure, and some people might argue that we should not go to any particular lengths to see that people get their pleasure unspoiled. I do not think that that reflects the attitude of this House as a whole. It certainly is not my own attitude. But still, I think it would be wise if I pointed out that far more enters into all this than just the reasonable guarantee of pleasure unalloyed.
Wireless has been used for many years now in connection with safety of life at sea and in the air, but during and since the war it has been enormously more important in this sphere. The development of very high frequency aids to navigation—radar is a simple generic term which will be familiar to everyone—means that the safety of life itself is beginning to be seriously threatened by much the same sources of interference as spoil the pleasure of listening in the home. There is no question that some electrical equipment—industrial and domestic—is liable, if not properly screened or adjusted to a safe wavelength, to put out of action altogether the safety landing devices of a neighbouring airport
.
This means that a serious aircraft accident might be caused by unpremeditated interference of the kind which this Bill is designed to check. The use of safety landing devices for aircraft is, of course, developing, and must be protected; and the seriousness of the problem is increased by the fact that at the same time as these developments in wireless telegraphy have been taking place there have been enormous increases in the use made of apparatus employing wireless techniques for therapeutic and industrial purposes, which can cause serious interference with wireless telegraphy.

Captain Crookshank: I rise to ask if this is merely a theoretical consideration, or whether, in fact, there have been such cases?

Mr. Paling: There is nothing theoretical about the fact that these interferences can and might interfere with signals and suchlike at an airport.

Captain Crookshank: That is my point. They can and may, but I am asking if, in fact, they have.

Mr. Paling: If the right hon. and gallant Member means: has there ever been a crash which a subsequent inquiry has stated was due to this cause? —the answer is "No." The Post Office are responsible in this matter for offering all the protection they can, and it is impossible for us to avoid this business; by virtue of the fact that it is developing so fast we shall be bound to do something about it.
The sole aim of Part II of the Bill is to give me powers to take effective action in the case of the very few selfish people who will not play, even when it is made clear to them that their appliances are causing interference with wireless reception. I want to emphasise that this is the sole effect of Part II, because the impression has got abroad that it does very much more than that; that, in the first place, it sets up a whole machinery which at the moment does not exist. That is not correct. As I have explained, the machinery for detecting and dealing with interference already exists, and has been working now for many years. What it needs in order to make it effective is power behind it, and the object of this Bill is to give it that power for use in extreme cases. The picture of a new army of inspectors is simply not true.
It may be argued that if the sole purpose of Part II of the Bill is as I have described it, then it surely is something of a steamhammer to crack a nut. I am, I must admit, here copying a phrase actually used by a newspaper, but it does put what might be a valid objection. But I hope to make it clear to hon. Members that the reason for the admittedly complex nature of this part of the Bill is to safeguard the interests, not of me and my servants, but of the members of the public who might be affected by the powers I am asking Parliament to give me under the Bill. It has also been suggested that when the Bill becomes law, everyone will be guilty of an offence who does not at once fit a device to every bit of his electrical equipment. Of course that is not the position, and I do not think I can do better, to show what is the real state of affairs, than to refer to the actual provisions of this Part of the Bill.
Clause 9 lays down that I should establish an advisory committee and an appeal tribunal; and Clause 10 empowers me,


after consultation with the advisory committee, to make regulations prescribing requirements to be complied with by electrical apparatus of the kinds that are liable to interfere with wireless telegraphy. This Clause also states in terms —in Subsection (4) —that it shall not—I repeat not—be unlawful to use apparatus by reason only that it does not comply with the requirements applicable under any regulation. I want to emphasise that these regulations—that is the interference regulations—will be made by the Postmaster-General after consultation with the advisory committee. The advisory committee will consist of persons who either possess expert knowledge or represent persons whose interests are likely to be affected. These regulations will, of course, like all other regulations in the Bill, also be subject to a negative resolution of either House of Parliament. But even so, the Bill does not make it possible for anyone to be prosecuted for not observing the regulations.
What the Bill does—in Clause 11—is to empower me, when apparatus is used not complying with the regulations applicable to it, and in my opinion liable to interfere with wireless telegraphy, to serve an enforceable notice on the possessor requiring him not to use it, or only to use it on conditions, e.g., at stated hours. But before such notice takes effect, unless safety of life is being endangered by the interference, the possessor of the apparatus, or anyone interested in it, can appeal to the independent tribunal which is to be set up under Clause 9; and if the tribunal considers that the regulation ought to be relaxed in the particular case before it, the tribunal can direct me to revoke the notice, so that it never comes into force at all. But if the notice has come into force, for example in the case of danger to safety of life, or if the possessor has delayed giving me notice of appeal for more than a month, the right of appeal is not lost; and the tribunal can still direct me to revoke the notice after it has considered the case.
These interference regulations which it is proposed I should make with the best possible technical advice, will, in effect, be authoritative directives, enforceable only in emergency or after appeal to an independent tribunal comprising

technical assessors. I hope that the cases in which enforcement will actually prove to be necessary will be few. I am justified in hoping this because of the extent to which the public in general have already shown themselves willing to collaborate with the Post Office in helping to cut down interference. But unless some power of enforcement is given to me, the absence of any way whatever of dealing with the exceptional cases of people obstinately going on using apparatus which interferes with their neighbours' wireless will obviously discourage the reasonable majority from going to any trouble in the matter, and in view of the widespread and growing use of electrical apparatus which is capable of interfering with wireless, we must expect the ordinary listener to suffer more and more. We must also expect sooner or later to have a tragedy, when life is lost through an airport safety service being put out of action by interference at a critical moment. These are risks which I do not think it would be right to take.
Perhaps I might illustrate what would happen, by a homely example—a flatiron fitted with a thermostat. Other electric irons normally do not cause interference. I could prescribe, being so advised by the advisory committee and assuming that neither House of Parliament restrained me, that such an electric iron should fulfil certain requirements. Now the result of this would not be to make it necessary for all such electric irons to be made so to comply with these requirements. Housewives would go on ironing as before. Manufacturers would manufacture irons as before. There need be no rush in the shops to buy gadgets to fit to electric irons.
The sole effect of my prescribing the electric iron is to make it, as it were,
"vulnerable." This is made quite clear in Clause 10 (4) which I have already mentioned. It would, indeed, make it possible for me, if matters come in the end to that pitch, to enforce the fitting of a device to any individual electric iron that was confirmed as being the cause of interference, by prohibiting its use so long as it interfered. I say "in the end" because hon. Members will see from Clause 11 that the houeswife who operates the electric iron can, if she wants to, appeal against my notice and wait


for the result before any question of enforcement arises. It may be contended, and I rather sympathise, that this lengthy procedure, which, by the way, we have to abbreviate where the interference threatens safety of life, is too cumbersome. But it is, as I have already said, our attempt to safeguard the private person against the over-zealous bureaucrat.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: May I ask one question about procedure? I agree with the outline that has been given, but does the Postmaster-Genera] consider it fair that after a case has been considered by the tribunal, it is open to him, as the proviso in Clause 11 stands, to issue a fresh notice on the same facts?

Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir, under certain conditions. I do not say this is an unimportant matter; it is a matter which can be dealt with during the Committee stage.

Captain John Crowder: Can the Postmaster-General explain a little more the position in regard to electric irons? Would the interference be liable to take place within five or six miles of an aerodrome or the coast, or what is the distance?

Mr. Paling: An electric iron would probably not cause interference. The interference radius is about 100 yards. The danger to an airport would come from bigger types of machinery, such as factory machinery, and particularly diathermic machinery and that sort of thing.
Any person interested can take his case, and here I refer to Clauses 9, Subsections (3) to (5) and 10 Subsections (3) to (6), to an appeal tribunal appointed by the highest representative of justice in the land. This tribunal will include independent experts. And the housewife will become guilty of an offence under the Bill only if she failed to put her electric iron in order and continued to use it after the tribunal had upheld the action of the Postmaster-General.
I have been dealing with housewives and electric irons because I wanted to bring the thing down to simple domestic terms, and, in particular, I have wanted to make it clear that nothing that I could prescribe if the Bill became law would entail that all electric irons had to be fitted with a device; that prescription does not in itself lay anyone under any obligation. It simply makes it possible for me

to insist on effective action being taken where an actual individual, having an appliance in the class prescribed, can he shown to be causing unreasonable interference and refuses to stop doing so.
It is not from the ordinary homes that we get or expect to get all our difficulties. We have every hope that in the large majority of home cases we will continue on the same friendly footing of co-operation between engineers and the families they visit as exists today. But there remains the problem of the very few selfish ones——

Mr. Oliver Stanley: How many?

Mr. Poling: I cannot give figures, but I believe that more than 90 per cent. co-operate. I have been trying to get some figures which I could give to the House.

Mr. William Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman stated that there had been over 40,000 complaints a year. In how many of these cases did the Post Office fail to get ultimate satisfaction?

Mr. Paling: I cannot give figures, but if I can do so later, I will try to give the House an answer in more definite terms. It is in order that we may be able to ensure that something effective can be done when necessary in the case of the selfish people that the powers proposed in the Bill are being sought.
Another sort of case which might get to the right of entry and enforcement stage is the instance, of which I know, of a cinema proprietor whose apparatus is causing disturbance locally, but who will not spend the pound or two to cure it; or the diathermy operator who as an alternative to providing adequate screening or other suitable modification will not collaborate with neighbours by using his or her appliance only at reasonable times of the day.
Before leaving this Part of the Bill, there are some special topics I should like to mention. I will first turn to the constructive criticism, which has already been offered in the Press, about the obligations of manufacturers. Would it not be better to lay the onus of fitting devices on the manufacturers themselves? It should save people a lot of trouble, and in many cases possibly some money, too. I had already given a good deal of thought


to the part to be played by manufacturers in all this. I should first like to make it clear that it has throughout been our idea that the provisions of this Bill should be supplemented by discussions with manufacturers. These discussions would have the object of securing their co-operation in fitting products with suitable gadgets—to the utmost extent, that is to which this might be found reasonable and practicable having regard to the substantial difficulties of any sort of completely uniform pattern. The question is not I think so much what should be done, as how it should be done—by the rather rigid frame of a statutory provision or by arrangements resulting from discussion of this problem in detail.
It would probably be possible to make regulations as to the maximum permissible intensity of energy to be radiated from electrical apparatus which could be applied to apparatus in the hands of manufacturers, but some difficulty might be expected in the application of such regulations. I would instance a few cases: apparatus that might comply with the requirements of the regulation when connected to one source of electricity, might not comply with the requirements when connected to another supply. Similarly, as regards different areas, it would not be possible to vary the maximum limits prescribed in the regulations to be applied to manufacturers, as is possible under the scheme proposed in the Bill for control at the user's end. It would therefore be necessary to make these regulations strict enough to meet the worst cases. This might mean that in many cases, the interference would be suppressed to a greater degree than was necessary and more manpower and materials would unavoidably have to be used than is really called for by the problem.
Although control at source might serve a useful purpose, a number of practical considerations would also have to be taken into account. I must emphasise that it could not be a substitute for the proposals in the Bill. It might be used to supplement the Bill but not to substitute the provisions already in the Bill, because it is not the manufacturers of electrical appliances who cause interference with wireless reception, but the users of those appliances. Although an

article may leave a workshop in a condition in which it will not cause interference, it does not follow that it will remain in that condition. Frequent use and the passage of time are liable to alter the conditions of all electrical appliances, and control at the manufacturer's end would not unless supported by other measures cure the nuisance of interference with wireless reception. Such a measure would clearly not help us in any way to deal with the cases arising out of appliances already sold and in use.
I would not for one moment go so far as to say that there are no types of apparatus which could not be profitably fitted right at the beginning with a device for cutting out interference. In cases of this sort I am confident from what I already know of the electrical industry —and our relations in the Post Office with that industry are both close and happy—that manufacturers will them-selves co-operate to the greatest reasonable extent. I think that the sparking system of the petrol engine, and I am here mainly referring to motorcars, is probably a case in point. A diverting picture has been drawn of our engineers, with headphones on their heads and complicated electrical devices in their hands, running about after motorcars in an attempt to "convict them for causing interference." I hope I have already made it abundantly clear that when this Bill becomes law, we are not going to create a vast new organisation and plunge into a kind of nation wide witch hunt against all possible sources of interference. The Bill itself and the safeguards in it operated by this very House would not permit of that, even if we wanted it.
We only make inquiries now when and where we receive complaints, and that will be our procedure in the future, too. Sometimes complaints are due to motorcars, and action can only be taken after the vehicle responsible has been traced, for instance, a taxi-cab rank near the source of complaint, or regular visits by a tradesman's van. In other cases the interference caused by any particular car must, from its nature, be intermittent, though intensive when the vehicle responsible is near the receiving apparatus. The car problem is, however, an increasingly serious one. Interference from cars is liable to affect radar, television and other very short wave


services. Probably the only effective long-term method of dealing with cars will be for the manufacturers to build devices into the car at the time of manufacture. I feel confident that I shall receive that co-operation.
I am sure, too, that motorists as a class will become sufficiently public spirited—and I speak as a motorist myself—to fit devices in their motors if they do not already have them. We shall try to secure their co-operation also, and I am sure that if we succeed the voluntary basis will be more economical than compulsion; but, as in other types of interference, we must have the power to deal in the last resort with the few motorists who will not co-operate although they are actually causing serious inconvenience, or even endangering life. In point of fact a number of large scale car users, London Passenger Transport and my own Department included, are already fitting devices in areas where interference from cars is likely to be serious.

Mr. George Ward: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in America, where there is a great deal of electrical equipment in use, and more motorcars than there are in this country, legislation of this sort has been found necessary?

Mr. Paling: I have no detailed information, but I am informed that in a number of countries compulsory powers have been taken to deal with this matter.

Mr. Stanley: In America?

Mr. Paling: America is one of them.

Mr. Wilson Harris: If interference is found to emanate from buildings in the possession of the Government—and I have a particular case in mind—does this machinery still operate, and has the right hon. Gentleman full powers to enforce his regulations?

Mr. Paling: I think the answer is
"Yes."

Brigadier Peto: If interference comes from a printing press, is there any means by which the Minister can suppress that press?

Mr. Paling: If interference comes from a printing press, or anything of that kind, we could probably suggest ways and means of dealing with it and preventing it.

Sir Harold Webbe: The right hon. Gentleman said that other countries had legislation along these lines. Can he say what countries they are, and what is the character of that legislation?

Mr. Paling: I think my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to give more information on this point than I can give at the moment.
Before passing to the last part of the Bill I wish to pay, on the Floor of the House, a most sincere tribute to that very distinguished body, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, which is named in the Bill. As Members will agree, the Institution of Electrical Engineers is a body nationally and internationally recognised as of the highest eminence in wireless and electrical engineering. My engineers in the Post Office have many close associations with the Institution, and they have come to rely a good deal on the outstanding quality of its advice and guidance in many aspects of electrical work. Wireless interference, in particular, is a problem which has been engaging their joint attention for many years now, and I doubt whether there is any body in the world so competent as the Institution to advise in this matter. The part the Institution have agreed to take in the working of this Bill, is of the utmost importance. I am very grateful for their agreement, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing also my Department's deep appreciation of and gratitude for all the help and advice which they have so willingly given us already.
I come now to Part III of the Bill, which deals with a number of matters which are subsidiary to, and dependent upon, the provisions we have already been considering. It contains provisions which have been criticised in regard to penalties and the enforcement of notices, and the entry and search of premises. I will not attempt today to go into great detail on those points, but I should like to make some reference to them because I know they concern all of us, irrespective of party. Penalties and powers of search will never be lightly passed by this House, and I am as concerned as anyone to ensure that we do not ask for more than fits the case.
There have been suggestions that the penalties are too high for the nature of the offences with which they are


associated. I want first to put the general case. I need hardly emphasise in this House that the penalties in the Bill are, of course, maximum penalties. It is not for me, or for officers of my Department, to say what penalties should be inflicted when a person is convicted of breaking the law. This is a matter for the courts, which, of course, inflict penalties below the maximum in accordance with the gravity of the offence. It may turn out, unfortunately, that we shall have to deal with some very bad or obstinate cases, and the question is whether the liability to suffer the maximum penalties prescribed in cases where the court considers their infliction to be justified would be oppressive in the case of a really bad offender. I have in mind, particularly, such a case as a person who persisted, in continuing to work apparatus in such a way as to endanger the safety of life services of an airport, or who interfered with wireless telegraphy deliberately. These are points which will no doubt be developed in the Debate and which can profitably be considered in the later stages of the Bill.
Part III also contains, in Clause 14, provision for the power of entry. The provision is on the lines of the 1904 Act, and the criticism is directed to the extension of circumstances in which the power may be exercised—that is to its use to search for interference-causing apparatus, and to test it. In justification of that extension I must bring it to the notice of the House that owing to the very nature of the offences it would be useless for my officers to be empowered to serve notices unless they are first able to inspect the apparatus and confirm that it is responsible for the interference. In cases, where co-operation is not forthcoming there can, of course, be no inspection without power of entry. In other words this Bill cannot be made effective if some power of entry is not given as a last resort.
I should, in this connection, like to repeat the view of the Government, to which expression has already been given in this House, that we are anxious to be very broadminded about this, and that we should welcome the assistance of the House in trying to find a solution without any impropriety regarding the privacy of the home. I appreciate, as

do my colleagues, that this matter, and indeed the Bill generally, is one of great interest to all Members, whatever their political views. I do not think that there can be any general quarrel with the aims as such of the Bill, but it is clear that many Members will have different views to put forward about the means by which these ends should be secured.
The Leader of the House has authorised me to say that it is proposed that the Committee stage of the Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House, and I may add that we are entirely open to consider any workable suggestion. I think what I have said is borne out by the wording of Clause 14, which makes it entirely clear that these provisions would be used only in the last extremity. Even then, I assure the House, power of entry will be used as infrequently and sparingly as possible. In by far the largest number of cases of interference now the Department is, as I have already explained, proceeding on a basis of friendly co-operation with all concerned. And that is the basis on which we hope to continue to work. But why should the selfish man get off every time? He is the one that this Clause is really designed for—the man who will not play.
I think that that is all I need say today on the purpose and provisions of this Measure. I have done my best to show that there is nothing very terrifying in the powers for which I am asking in the Bill, and to give every assurance that the last thing I desire is to be oppressive if the House grants me these powers. I hope I have also carried some conviction to the House on the need for facing up to a difficult and growing problem, and that I have shown the very practical and workaday aims of the Bill. I am convinced that the community as a whole needs the protection which the Bill sets out to give. The Post Office has a job to do, and an obligation to the community to do it well and I hope that hon. Members will be prepared to equip us with adequate powers to carry it out and to see that we are left with no excuse for failing in our work.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which contains onerous provisions


that cannot be justified by public need; which enables the Postmaster-General to compel citizens to incur expense as a condition of using apparatus lawfully manufactured and acquired; and which confers on the Government further powers to invade the privacy of the home.
I have listened carefully and with interest to what the Postmaster-General has had to say in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, but I must confess that I am not at present persuaded that he has really made out a case for asking the House to give him the very considerable powers of intrusion and interference which he takes in Part II. It is true that he says he will deal with this question with an open mind. So shall we. There is a problem to be solved, but in unfolding my case I hope to persuade the House to agree with me that the approach of the right hon. Gentleman to this problem is not the right one. I was struck by the fact that he made great play with the 40,000 complaints of interference per annum. When one remembers that there are 11 million people listening to wireless programmes on 365 days in the year, I do not think that an annual number of 40,000 complaints can be called anything more than a minute proportion of the total number of listeners.

Mr. Cobb: Is the hon. Member aware that a great number of justifiable complaints are never made: that in all probability his own set is not giving the performance that it might, and that he ought to complain about it?

Mr. Grimston: I know all about my radio set which, as a matter of fact, works very well. If the hon. Member prefers it, let us increase the figure, double it or treble it; it still represents a small proportion of the total number of listeners. The other thing which strikes me is that the right hon. Gentleman has said quite categorically that in none of the air accidents which have unhappily occurred has the cause been traced to interference with navigational aids. I propose to develop my case, and it will be a matter for the House to judge as to how far we are justified in the attitude which we take.
First, let me say a word with regard to Part I. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and although I will not say that we shall have nothing to say upon it, we have no quarrel with it. If the

Bill consisted of Part I we might very well say to the Minister that we should be very glad to give it to him. There are some slight modifications, but it seems only sensible, after we have re-enacted the Bill for 42 years, for the House to decide that it should be given more permanent form. I do not propose to say anything more about Part I at the moment.
About Part II we are somewhat naively informed in the Explanatory Memorandum that this is an attempt to solve the problem of interference which, from the manner in which the atmosphere is being thronged with rays at the present moment, is bound to arise and to increase. It is certainly an attempt to solve that problem, but the method which is attempted is to give the Postmaster-General vast powers of interference with the ordinary citizen both going about his lawful occasions and in the privacy of his home, powers which we consider at the present moment are not warranted either by the urgency or by the extent of the problem. I make no pretence of trying to speak upon this subject as a technical expert. I am approaching it from a lay point of view, which I believe is the proper point of view from which we should approach it. It is often very dangerous if people who have had much conversation and much advice from technical experts take on some of the enthusiasm of those experts—which I do not decry—because they are apt to look at the problem rather more from the technical point of view than from the wider aspect which is involved. It is the particular job of this House to look at this problem, being in possession of such technical information as the Minister can give us, from those wider aspects.
Following that up, I would suggest that there are two degrees of interference. There is interference with wireless or with radar signals which may—but apparently has not yet done so—interfere with safety of life at sea or in the air, or possibly for all I know with developments of radar control on the ground, during fog and so on. There is also interference with amenity or amusement, either ordinary wireless or television, as the Minister has said. One of the complaints I make is that the Bill treats those two kinds of interference in the same way. The House and public


opinion would be very ready to concede a great deal more power of interference to the Postmaster-General where safety at sea or in the air, or the defence of the Realm, were involved than they would for the mere enjoyment of wireless or television reception. I want to proceed to show the House how the powers which the Postmaster-General is proposing would apply in a particular case.
For the purpose of developing my case I should like to give an illustration of what can happen under the provisions of Parts II and III of the Bill. First of all, as the right hon. Gentleman has already said, under Clause 10 he will be able to say that no Hoover, hair-drier, thermostatically controlled electric iron, child's toy electric train, or motor car, and so on, can be used unless it is fitted with a suppressor to stop wireless interference. I think that is a reasonable interpretation of the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman can issue a regulation to say that none of those things may be used in the future, unless they have some adaptor fitted to them, and apparently that has to be done at the cost of the possessor.
I take a very simple and homely illustration. Let us suppose that Mrs. H. has a Hoover and that Mrs. T has a television set. The House will perhaps excuse me for taking such a small illustration, but I want to bring out how the proposal made by the Postmaster-General could work. Mrs. T complains that her television set is being interfered with. I suppose she complains to the Post Office or to the B.B.C. Under Clause 11 (1) the Postmaster-General can issue a notice to Mrs. H that she must not continue to use her Hoover unless she has a suppressing apparatus fixed to it, or that she must use it only at certain times. If she fails to comply with that notice she will render herself liable to a maximum fine of £100 or three months' imprisonment, or both.
That is in the Bill, but I think the position is worse than that. If the Postmaster-General wants to find out whether or not to serve a notice on Mrs. H with regard to her Hoover he can get a warrant to search her house, subject only to the fact that she has refused voluntarily to let him do so.
That is going much too far in cases where amusement or amenities merely are concerned. The Postmaster-General will not dispute that I have given a correct interpretation of what can be done under the Bill if it goes through in its present form. The House should realise that the Postmaster-General will have the power to search anybody's house, subject only to the fact that voluntary entrance has been refused, if a complaint has been made. To take these powers in peace time for purposes which have nothing to do with danger to life or with the defence of the Realm is a monstrous infringement of the ordinary decencies appertaining to the liberty of the subject and to the privacy of his home. That is our case against part of the method that the Postmaster-General is introducing in order to deal with this nuisance.
It may be said that my illustration is exaggerated. In fact, the Postmaster-General says that if we give him these powers he is not going to use them. That sort of argument cuts no ice at all. Why take the powers if they are not to be used? The chances are that they will be used. I do not believe that this House should allow such powers to exist in ordinary times. I see the Lord President of the Council sitting on the Government Front Bench. Last Thursday one of his own Back Benchers raised the question of the alarm which is being caused by the power of entry into the homes of the people which the Postmaster-General is now proposing to take. I should like to remind the House of what the Lord President of the Council then said:
I will only say that we want to be very broadminded about this, and that we would welcome the assistance of the House in trying to find a solution without any impropriety regarding the privacy of the home. I assure the House that we will only act in that spirit, and that we hope to have the assistance of all sides of the House in this matter." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1032.]
I am sure that that statement by the right hon. Gentleman was welcomed on all sides. Therefore, I want to make a suggestion to him and to the Minister in charge. I must say the reply of the Lord President on Thursday does not indicate that there is any urgent necessity to take these powers in the overriding interest either of defence or of safety, because he laid stress on doing whatever is necessary without any impropriety to


the privacy of the home. Therefore I cannot think, in spite of what he said, that there is tremendous urgency in this case.
I would suggest a different approach by the Postmaster-General. I was not convinced by what he said about the approach he has made so far to the manufacturers, and I believe that is really the way in which this matter should be dealt with. I understand that the major interference is likely to occur in the case of television and it will be
many years before——

Mr. Wilfred Paling: No. I was careful to say that television might be more susceptible to interference in some cases than radio, but only one out of every 15 complaints is concerned with television.

Mr. Grimston: That is a large proportion considering the small number of television sets at present in existence. I think we may take it from that intervention that the problem will become really acute when television sets become universal, which will not be for a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It will be some time before television sets are cheap enough to be in the universal use that wireless sets are at present, especially if we have this present Government. As I say, the volume of complaints is small at present, and I reiterate that the problem will become far more acute when the use of television sets approaches the use of ordinary wireless sets today, which it may well do in time.
If the manufacturers of all apparatus likely to interfere are told that in future suppressors of one kind or another must be fitted, two results will follow, the first is that the cost will be slight. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the cost of fitting suppressors at the moment is small, but I am informed that in certain cases the fitting may be quite expensive. If, however, manufacturers in future are to put these suppressors in the apparatus, it will become part of the process of manufacture, it will probably be absorbed in the general cost, and it might result in hardly any rise in the eventual selling price. The other result is that as television sets become more universal, so will these suppressors become universal in the apparatus which is likely to interfere, and the problem will have solved itself

without all this paraphernalia of notices, search warrants, painful penalties and so on. I suggest that the Postmaster-General might remind himself of the saying, "take care of the sense and the sounds will take care of themselves." That would be a much more reasonable way of dealing with this problem, particularly with the aspect of it which deals with amenity.
I go further. I consider that the Postmaster-General will do well to look again at Parts II and III, because considerable amendment will be needed if those parts of the Bill are to meet the objections. It would be far better if he took them away and re-introduced them to the House in a form which will not arouse the obvious objections to the present draft, objections which will be found to exist on all sides of the House. Meantime Part I can be looked after by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and if, unhapply, an emergency of any kind descends upon us, the Government can take rapid action to deal with any interference with military messages. However, we are not in that position at present.
The technician is bound to look at it only from the point of view of perfecting apparatus, and I do not blame him, because that is what he is there for. Our business is to look at the wider aspects of the matter, and I believe that with a Bill of this kind we are imposing a burden upon the general public out of all proportion to the necessity for dealing with the few selfish people mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Those are the lines taken by the "Economist" in a paragraph on this subject last week with which I agree. The House will be wise to see that it is not placing far too large burdens on the public to deal with a problem which has not yet assumed large proportions.
By this Bill we are giving the Postmaster-General far too great powers, powers which he himself says be does not intend to use. As I say, unless the Postmaster-General can give us more indication than he has done so far of the distance he is prepared to go to meet these objections, we shall have to take the House to a Division on the Amendment which I have moved.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I beg to second the Amendment which has been moved so reasonably by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston).
I feel that the House will have gone a long way with my hon. Friend in the arguments he deployed in moving the Amendment, and hon. Members will have felt a corresponding disappointment with the arguments put forward by the Postmaster-General this afternoon. We do not like the Bill as it stands, but we were prepared to listen to powerful arguments which might have shown an urgency that could not be denied and might have shown that the objects of the Bill could not be attained in any other way. I must confess, however, that the Postmaster-General came down to this House with a big brief but with little factual information. On all the vital issues where statistics might have been produced to justify what is admittedly a departure from the principle of the liberty of the subject, the right hon. Gentleman had to tell us that he would give us the information at some later date.
Everybody in this House must have in mind the idea that there must be some method of dealing with interference to wireless reception. We are particularly mindful that something ought to be done where public safety is affected. All we are concerned about is that this method is not the right one. o As the right hon. Gentleman said it is not so much what should be done, but how it should be done. We do not quarrel about what has to be done, but we do quarrel with the means by which the object in mind is to be achieved. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not abuse his powers. I think the House would be ready to accept that assurance because the right hon. Gentleman is well thought of here, but we have to remember that these powers will be, in some sense, delegated to thousands of officials, amongst whom will be some who are rather officious. Therefore, the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman gives us is no assurance that Mrs. Jones in Bermondsey will not be the victim of an over-zealous official armed with these powers.
The right hon. Gentleman was asked how many of the 40,000 complaints which

are laid each year, fail to be resolved ultimately by the Post Office. I was astonished when he said that he did not know. I should have thought that anybody who brought forward this Measure would have done so only after examining all the facts affecting interference, but apparently the right hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to apprise himself of the situation concerning complaints.
A second question put to the right hon Gentleman was how this matter is dealt with in other countries, but he gave a most evasive and indeterminate reply I should have thought that if a Department of the Government intended to bring forward a Bill of this kind, it would have looked closely at all similar legislation in other countries. That should have been a first step in formulating this Measure, but apparently the right hon. Gentleman and, I assume, his Department, have no exact knowledge of what is happening in other countries. The right hon. Gentleman said he was surprised at the feeling which had been roused over this Bill. It is remarkable that he should stand at the Despatch Box and say he is surprised that people, in this country should take affront at individuals having power to come into their houses under the authority of warrants. It shows that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, despite their professed affection for democracy and liberty, have totalitarian trends——

Mr. Cobb: Nonsense, rubbish.

Mr. Shepherd: It does not occur to them that an individual regards his house as his castle and does not want persons armed with the power of a warrant to burst into his home to examine apparatus. I am prepared to believe that most people in this country would co-operate, as the right hon. Gentleman said they would, with the Government in aiming to eliminate interference; but they might reasonably say, "Why should we be put to more expense and inconvenience when we are using apparatus which, when we bought it and until the passage of this Act, it was perfectly legal to buy and to operate? Why should we now be forced to incur this expense?" That is a view which they would be entitled to take.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the incredible difference between the approach of the right hon. Gentleman


to Mrs. Jones in Bermondsey—and the hundreds and thousands of Mrs. Joneses elsewhere—and his approach to manufacturers. He says, "We hope the manufacturers will co-operate," and he proposes to do nothing else about it. He hopes that the manufacturers will cooperate, but if Mrs. Jones does not cooperate, she can be sent to prison for three months. That is not a rational attitude for His Majesty's Government to take. If manufacturers are compelled to fit suppressors, they will do so at a cost which is but a small proportion of that in which the user will be involved. It may be that a suppressor which costs Is. 6d. retail, can be made by a manufacturer in his workshop for a few pence. I do not know how much it would cost when fitted by an outside Conractor—it might be 2s., 3s., 5s., or even 10s. —but the cost of its production in the workshop would be Infinitesimal in proportion. In these circumstances, surely, it is rational for compulsion to be applied to the manufacturers because, as my hon. Friend so clearly pointed out, compulsion on the manufacturers will ultimately solve this problem.
The only argument which the right hon. Gentleman deployed against the suggestion that manufacturers should be forced to fit suppressors to appliances is that we may need to have regard to the highest degree of interference and its suppression. That is by no means a powerful argument. He said that time, labour and material would be wasted. That is a very old story. He did not attempt to say what would be the difference in terms of man-hours, labour and material in catering for the maximum, as against the minimum, interference that might be encountered. I suggest that that difference is infinitesimal. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. He knows there is really no justification at all for imposing upon people the possibility of heavy fines and imprisonment while manufacturers are allowed to produce the articles which are, in fact, the cause of the trouble.
This is a very bad Bill indeed, and I am surprised that even this Government has the temerity to bring it forward. This Bill, in another form, has been taken away before, and I suggest that the Government ought to take it away again.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. John Lewis: The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), when moving the Amendment, made it quite clear to the House that he was speaking as a layman. Many hon. Members will agree that one should not approach a Bill of this kind from a narrow point of view. On the other hand, the House will agree that one can go too far and that it is necessary when dealing with matters of this kind, which are of their very nature technical, that hon. Gentlemen opposite who move Amendments on technical subjects should at least have made it their business to inquire into some of the technical aspects of the case. If they had done so in the matter which is now before us, they would not have made the kind of speeches we have heard this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Westbury referred to the fact that 11 million people in this country have wireless sets but that only 40,000 complaints per annum are being received by the Post Office or by the B.B.C. It should be obvious to anybody that a very large number of those 11 million sets are in rural areas, where the question of interference does not really arise. Therefore, the fact that 40,000 complaints per annum are being made—and I am sure they come mainly from towns—is a clear indication that this matter of interference is something which should, quite rightly, receive the serious consideration of the Government.
The degree of interference is important—whether it interferes with people's amusement, or whether people are not satisfied that their appliances are giving the best possible performance. The putting forward by the hon. Member for Westbury of the case of Mrs. H., who has a set which interferes with her neighbours, and his suggestion that under the Bill it is possible for the Postmaster-General to invade her home, is utterly absurd and nonsensical.

Mr. Grimston: It is in the Bill. Read the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: It is most certainly not in the Bill. The Post Office must be satisfied that the interference is a common nuisance affecting many people. Quite obviously, no Postmaster-General or anybody acting on his behalf will apply to a court for a warrant to enter a person's


home merely because of one complaint which has been received. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, a notice must be given, and it is quite clear that in any case where any apparatus of any kind is causing interference, any action taken will be based not upon one single complaint from Mrs. H., but upon probably two hundred complaints from different people suffering interference in the same area, before even a notice is issued. Until such a notice is issued and is not complied with, no action of the kind envisaged by hon. Gentlemen opposite would be contemplated.
There are other considerations which should be taken into account when reviewing this Bill. The Government ought to be congratulated on having consolidated the various Acts since 1904. These were very much in need of being brought up to date. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite, who are so anxious to safeguard the rights and freedom of individuals, should be against this Measure, which has as one of its main objects, the prevention of interference with other individuals' enjoyment of wireless and television programmes. I feel that the hon. Member for Westbury is right in saying that there is not sufficient emphasis on television. This matter is of much greater importance now that there are more television sets being installed. Interference with television reception is a very serious matter. I have a set and, as I live near to a main road, there are constant flickers going across the screen entirely due to the fact that suitable suppressing apparatus is not fitted to vehicles which pass by on the road.
There is a more important aspect. At Question Time today my right hon. Friend told me that his Advisory Committee are discussing with the cinema industry and the B.B.C. the question of rediffusion of television programmes in cinemas. Supposing, as I hope, this goes forward and in a few years time thousands of people go to cinemas to see the re-diffusion of television programmes from Alexandra Palace and elsewhere, is it conceivable that the Postmaster-General should not have powers to prevent interference with such programmes by someone nearby working a Hoover or other electrical apparatus and so spoiling the programme for hundreds of people in the

cinema? It seems quite reasonable that the Post Office should have the powers for which they are asking.
When war broke out, doctors were working a short-wave diathermic apparatus. During the war this equipment was taken from them or they were made to screen it. I believe the officer in charge was Major-General St. J. D. Arcedeckne-Butler, as Director-General of signal equipment. He was responsible for dealing with these diathermic apparatuses because they were, in effect, transmitting stations. Anyone who has had a radio set in close proximity to a doctor's surgery knows full well the effect which this type of apparatus has on radio reception and the interference it causes to television.
Let us assume for a moment then that there is a doctor who does not like His Majesty's Government. He may have nothing against the Postmaster-General, but does not like the Minister of Health and decides that he will be awkward about the matter. He refuses to take reasonable steps to ensure that his diathermic short-wave set will not trouble people who have television or radio sets in the immediate vicinity. Does anyone suggest that the Postmaster-General should not have powers to deal with a case of that kind? Obviously if such a doctor refused to act, it would be an exceptional case, but although the Minister may not use the powers, he must have them. That would not be an encroachment on the liberty of the subject as the powers would only be used in specific cases where people refused, and categorically refused, to do something which it is quite reasonable should be done in the interests of their fellow citizens.
The Opposition are so horrified about the provisions of Part II of the Bill, but they seem to have overlooked something in respect of Part I which I feel to be a much greater encroachment on the liberty of the individual and which should -not have escaped their attention. Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, if any persons in this country tune in to 190 metres, as do the good people of Yarmouth and Lowestoft, they are breaking the law if they pick up messages from trawlers. In accordance with that Act they are liable to conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts and to a penalty not exceeding £10 and, on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £100, or


imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding 12 months. That provision has been carried forward into the present Bill with, I believe, one or two amendments to the effect that instead of going to prison for 12 months, with or without hard labour, the term is reduced to three months; and that is for tuning in and listening to trawlers at 190 metres.
I think the Postmaster-General should have reconsidered the matter and should not have carried that provision forward into the new Bill. Obviously the terms of the licence issued to anyone who instals a radio receiver are such that they must abide by the regulations laid down by the Post Office, but it is absurd to suggest that anyone who has a set is not entitled to tune in to anything that comes in on that wavelength, when we recall that during the war people could tune in and listen to stations in Nazi Germany without offence. It was quite in order to listen to "Lord Haw-Haw" broadcasting from Germany, yet if one tuned in today to 190 metres and heard broadcast messages from a trawler, one would be committing an offence and would be liable to go to prison. I hope my right hon. Friend will look carefully into that matter before the Committee stage.
The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd), who seconded the Amendment, on all occasions uses rather extravagant language. I am sorry he is not in his place, as I thought he should be in these circumstances. But, sometimes even from the mouths of babes and sucklings come words of wisdom. I thought he made a very good suggestion to my right hon. Friend, that whereas my right hon. Friend, in his anxiety to ensure that television and radio reception is improved and not interfered with, whether in the interests of safety or any other factors, seeks powers to force people to adhere to these new regulations, he should at the same time take powers to ensure that manufacturers of electrical equipment are compelled to fit suppressors to the apparatus they manufacture. My right hon. Friend need not necessarily exercise those powers, but he should have them just the same. If he agreed to that suggestion, he would go a long way to meet some of the points raised by the hon. Member opposite.

5.0 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I feel in a similar predicament to the Postmaster-General, having been interested before the war and being to some extent interested now in an electrical business. I can quite see the need for introducing such a Bill, but I do not agree with the wording. The main theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) was the powers of the Minister to deal with this matter. I believe that very much more can be achieved by persuasion, though if we do not get it that way, it may be necessary eventually to follow some such steps as this Bill proposes. I do not believe, however, that it is necessary at the moment. The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of listening in to trawlers broadcasting. I have been out in trawlers myself on occasions, and I do not think the average person would listen a second time, because the language is somewhat strong. We all know that trawlers have their own code, and in it they often pass messages to their wives that they are due in port at a certain time. If this were prevented, we might not have any fish, so we had better leave the matter as it is.

Mr. J. Lewis: The hon. and gallant Gentleman missed my point. I was merely pointing out that under the provisions of the old Act, which are incorporated in this Bill, it is an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment in certain circumstances, to listen to these trawlers.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I cannot conceive that it would ever come to light that someone had tuned in with a receiver on that wavelength.
This Bill started its life in 1939. It was apparent then that some form of legislation would be necessary to deal with this problem. The present Bill as it is worded does not meet present day conditions. Many things have happened in the electrical world through radar and other equipment and the problems have become so involved that they have got to be dealt with step by step instead of by sweeping powers at one go. I quite agree with the Postmaster-General that a radio set is part of the household equipment. It is rather like having a mangle in the house or any other such article. It is an accepted fact that every house,


more or less, has a radio set, or at any rate we all hope that they will all have one in a short space of time.
So far as television is concerned, I would differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston). He thought it would be many years before there were television sets in the country in any great numbers. I do not agree with that. When the cable is extended to the Midlands and then further north we shall have a great many television sets and the more sets that are built, the sooner the price will come down. On Sunday I had the pleasure of looking in a television set and seeing the Lord President of the Council in Whitehall getting wet through. That is the only occasion when I had bad interference on my set although it is near a main road. I would congratulate the Postmaster-General on the television service. It has made tremendous progress in the last year or two. It shows great initiative on the part of his staff, the engineers and others that such clear programmes are sent out.
The Postmaster-General said he was willing to have discussions with the manufacturers in due course. It would have been better had these discussions taken place before the Second Reading of this Bill so that he could have come here and told us how far they would co-operate and to what extent the difficulties are likely to be overcome. We are told now that we have to wait until after today for these discussions. That is not treating the House in the way it should be treated on this point.
The Postmaster-General also referred to detection machinery. I do not know how efficient the detection machinery is, but I was told before the war when the Post Office were trying to get people to buy licences, they used to send vans round the streets with a few gadgets in them which could be seen. When the ladies saw the van they rushed off terrified that they were going to be summoned, and bought licences out of sheer fright. I do not know how efficient the detection apparatus is today, but perhaps the House can be told, for that has a bearing on the particular point, although it may be giving away one or two of the secrets of the Post Office. We have quite enough regulations today without adding to what is already a far too heavy list

of rules and regulations, particularly of this type of entering an individual's house. I thought that last week's Government statement about controls was an indication that their policy now was to lessen the number of controls prior to the General Election without bringing in new ones which gives an official the right to enter a house.
I should like to know how many complaints the Postmaster-General has had regarding the operation of aircraft. I quite agree that it is very serious on a blind approach system to an airfield if there is interference. An aircraft might be taken off its course and crash with loss of life. That has to be taken care of, and I would suggest that equipment should be installed at that airport which would readily show if interference is taking place. There should be some form of detection equipment in the control tower or in close proximity to the airfield. Everything must be done in relation to establishing some system of detection where there is a possible loss of life involved. It must be taken care of.

Mr. J. Lewis: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what he means by "taking care of"? Following up that line of argument, let us assume that in close proximity to this apparatus a doctor started up a short wave apparatus and he refused to take any steps whatsoever to prevent interference, what should my right hon. Friend do in those circumstances?

Air-Commodore Harvey: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment I will deal with that point when I come to diathermy. I do not believe that radio receivers are the main source of trouble in this matter. They do cause trouble through inefficient aerials, but the real trouble I believe is in hospitals where there is diathermy and in doctors' consulting rooms. In the war the hospitals had to screen their equipment in a metal cage in such a way that it could not send out a single message which enemy aircraft could pick up. I am told that that is not done today, and if this proposal is going to be enforced it is going to cost the Ministry of Health a large sum of money to put the equipment into separate rooms and carry out the screening. I feel entitled to ask how far the Government are going to take care of their


own facilities in this matter. We have not been told anything at all except that there is a right to enter a Government building.
I believe that motor cars are the most damaging both to television receivers and to some extent to radio receivers. I should have thought that the right thing to do would be to have every new car fitted with the correct gadgets and suppressors and when a car's licence comes up for renewal, a certificate would have to be produced by the owner saying that the necessary modifications had been carried out. In a matter of 12 months or so I believe we should overcome most of the difficulties of getting cars correctly screened.
The Post Office I know are most successful in dealing with the complaints they receive. I have here some information extracted from a Post Office memorandum on interference for the month of June, 1948. There is nothing secret about it, for it is given out to the trade. It shows that of all the complaints received in June, 1948, those unknown, not heard by Post Office staff, total 24 per cent.; inefficient aerials, 17.2 per cent.; faulty receivers, 11.8 per cent.; faulty wiring of buildings, 6.6 per cent.; refrigerators, 4 per cent.; electrical motors, 3 per cent.; bedwarmers, 2.1 per cent.; fluorescent tubes, 2 per cent.; sewing machine motors, 1.8 per cent.; mis-operation of receivers, 1.6 per cent.; amateur radio stations, 1.3 per cent.
I do not believe that the real trouble is due to the ordinary household receiver at all. These figures show that the Post Office are tackling the problem, and if they go on in that way they can practically solve the problem by persuasion and not by forcing their way under an order into a house. Likewise, I believe that the manufacturers will co-operate by incorporating new features in the equipment to overcome the difficulties. The penalties proposed are severe, and I do not think that my constituents with whom I discussed the matter want this at all. Many of them may not realise the implications where loss of life is concerned, but I believe that this House would be doing the wrong thing if it gave this Bill a Second Reading in its present form.
The Postmaster-General, who sends very courteous replies to any letters I

ever send to him regarding complaints from my constituents, will find that this Bill as now worded, is not necessary at all if he tackles this problem by persuasion and by working closely with the manufacturers as well as by setting up a committee to deal with the safety side and see how the difficulties in that direction can be overcome.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) spoke, I have no doubt, with great knowledge of the technical and scientific aspects of this subject, and about them I am not qualified to speak. I wish to say a few words about the effect of this Bill upon the power of entry and of search, which are topics of the most vital importance to all Members of this House. We on this side of the House are committed to the view that for certain social and economic purposes the power of the State should be extended, but while we are committed to that point of view, we are no less committed to the view that it is absolutely essential to remain vigilant to ensure that no unnecessary or undesirable infringement occurs of any of our civil liberties or of our privacy.
Having in mind that general principle, which I believe will be generally agreed upon in the House, I have looked anxiously at the provisions in this Bill to see whether there really is any objectionable feature to be found in it. I turn first to the provisions dealing with the power of entry and the power of search. I find that there is no power of entry, as I understand it, and no power of search until there has been sworn information laid before justices. I find further that the swearing of that information before justices is of no effect whatever under the Bill unless, at the time that the information is being given, there is reason to suspect that an offence has been or is being committed.
Before an offence under the Bill can take place, and before an offence can be suspected to take place, there must have been not only objectionable interference, but a notice by the Postmaster-General calling for that objectionable interference to stop. If my understanding of the Bill is correct, these are very important limitations upon the power of search and upon


the power of entry conferred by the Bill. A citizen can only go to justices and set in motion the procedure for the issue of a search warrant if he suspects or alleges two things: first, that objectionable interference is taking place, and, secondly, that the Postmaster-General has already issued a notice calling upon that interference to cease. Looking at this matter dispassionately and objectively, it seems to me that the conditions in which both these circumstances will be present are so unlikely to arise that this provision in the Bill is an item of really negligible importance. Therefore, I cannot agree when it is alleged that this Bill provides for a serious infringement of privacy and a serious extension of the rights of search and entry.
I take this opportunity of saying that, although I think that that criticism in connection with the Bill is unfounded, there are in my view one or two doubtful features in it which it is very important should be considered in Committee. I should like to mention two of them. The first is the one which was mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) when he intervened in the course of the speech of my right hon. Friend. He referred to the proviso in Subsection (4) of Clause 11 of the Bill. I venture to express the view that that is rather an objectionable proviso as it stands, and I hope that it will be carefully considered in Committee.
As I understand it, what that Clause does is to set up, with a considerable flourish of language, a tribunal, which is given apparently extensive powers. When one looks at this proviso one finds that what it makes possible is for the tribunal to call upon the Postmaster-General to revoke a notice which he has delivered calling for some interference to stop. Although the tribunal may order that that notice shall be
revoked by the Postmaster-General, the proviso gives the Postmaster-General complete power to issue a new notice covering the same set of facts and precisely to the same effect as the previous notice. In my view that, as it stands, is an undesirable proviso.
The other provision in the Bill which I look upon with some anxiety is Subsection (7) in Clause 11 which deals with a person who:

knowing that a notice of the Postmaster-General under this Section is in force with respect to any apparatus, uses that apparatus, or causes or permits it to be used in contravention of the notice.…
That seems to me a somewhat dangerous provision. As I understand it, it has this effect. I may go to the house of a friend and if that friend, in the course of his conversation with me, lets me know—as he is quite likely to do—that he has received a notice from the Postmaster-General calling upon him to stop using a certain apparatus in his house, and then in my presence proceeds to operate that apparatus, if I do not remonstrate with him or intervene to prevent him from operating the apparatus I am liable to a fine not exceeding £100 or to a period of three months' imprisonment, or both. That provision, on the grounds I have attempted to indicate, seems to me to be undesirable. Those are points which can be dealt with in Committee. With the general purpose and effect of this Bill I have no quarrel whatever and I can give it my approval.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: It would appear that the argument of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) is rather a strange one. He has said, "I do not agree with the Opposition in the arguments that they are putting forward that they do not like this Bill." He then proceeded to tell the Government why he did not like the Bill. He used such words as, "doubtful features of this Bill," and, "undesirable provisions of this Bill," and so forth. If he searches his heart I think he will find that he has not obtained very much comfort from this Bill either.
The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) also appeared to me to be using very strange language about this Bill. He first said that it was desirable to have a certain degree of technical knowledge. I would hasten to add that I have not that technical knowledge. I assume that he may have that knowledge, but it seems a little strange that he then decided that rural areas were not having any difficulty with interference. I represent a rural area and also know a certain amount about the countryside, and I would say that a certain degree of interference is as likely in the rural areas as anywhere else. The hon. Member, and any hon. Member of this
House who thinks that interference really does not trouble the rural countryside should tell that to anyone living in Cornwall. It might then be suggested to them that perhaps his technical knowledge is not as great as the hon. Member made out.
With regard to the Bill itself, it did appear to me that the hon. Member has not given sufficient study to it, because where he appeared to think there was not any real trouble and nothing to worry about was in regard to the very things bout which we are troubled and concerned. I completely agree with the concluding passages of his speech with regard to the question of listening in to trawlers and the rest. How absurd it is that it should be possible to prosecute in such cases. There again, he showed that he did not like the Bill. I thought that he made a very good case to show why the Opposition do not like the Bill either.
When listening to the Postmaster-General, these were the thoughts that went through my mind. It seemed to me that he approached this subject rather like this: "Something must be done. This Bill is something, therefore, let us do it." I feel perfectly satisfied that all of us in this House realise that something must be done, but equally some of us—perhaps a larger number than people may think—think that this is not the way to do it. This is a mischievous little Bill. The Postmaster-General referred to the word, "experimental" in reference to Part II and Part III. Does it not appear that sufficient real study has not been given to this Measure before it was presented? It appears that suddenly, for some reason of which I am not aware, the Bill came out of a pigeon hole at the Post Office. His Majesty's Ministers had not sufficient time to study its implications before it was brought forward, perhaps because it was a fit moment to fill in time during this week. That is my impression.
If my impression is right, it is indeed a very good reason why the Bill is bad. During the period I have been in this House I have noticed that if the Lord President of the Council spends a considerable time on the Government Front Bench when he is not actually conducting a Bill, he is not too happy about it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not here now."]
It is true that the Lord President is not present at the moment but he has spent a good deal of time here today. I do not always refer to the fact that hon. Members need occasionally to go to get tea. I have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman has spent a considerable time on the Government Front Bench today rather like a jaunty jay willing to give warning suddenly, because he is listening to the Debate and is worried by it. That, coupled with the words he used in answer to a Question the other day, causes me to believe that he is not too happy about this Bill. Every speech which has been made so far, whether from a supporter of the Government or a Member of the Opposition, has given full vent to the fact that nobody is happy about this Measure.
The Postmaster-General used another argument when he spoke about suppressors and manufacturers. Part of his argument was that he could not direct the manufacturers to fit these gadgets because it may well be that in one part of the United Kingdom they would not work as well as in another. I think that that fairly represents what he said. I am not a technical man, but it appears to me that if indeed that is the case we shall find many difficulties. What about the holiday season when the housewife travelling about the country takes with her an electric iron? Does it mean that at one moment in one part of the country she will be tackled by someone and told that she must have a different suppressor, and then when she moves to another place she must make another change?
What about the electric razor and the myriad little electrical gadgets which are to be found all over the place? There is the car with a radio inside it. What happens when the car moves from one place to another? Perhaps it may go near an aerodrome so that the driver can see an aeroplane come down. He may have to wait for a long time and he may turn on the radio.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): If a car has a radio set, it is already protected.

Mr. Marshall: That is not the point I am making. I am not talking about that very nice luxury
which some people manage to afford of a radio attached to one's car. I am speaking of the little


radio which one takes from the house and puts into the car. I have one myself. That may well cause interference. I feel that these matters can be overcome but that they have not yet been sufficiently studied by His Majesty's Government. I suggest that this Bill has been put before us without having been given the necessary study by the Government.
Already a lot has been said about Clause 14 which refers to search warrants and powers of arrest. The argument of one hon. Member opposite was to the effect that he could not imagine all these things happening. He did not really believe that they would ever come to pass. That is always the argument about some form of dictation which is contained in a Bill. People say, "This power will not really be used. It could not really happen." I do not suggest that the Postmaster-General will do this, but we do not know who will be the Postmaster-General tomorrow. Funny things have happened in the last three years.
During the last ten years there has been voluntary co-operation in these matters of interference and, as far as I can see, that system must have worked remarkably well. It is a great day for the Postmaster-General when he stands at the Despatch Box and introduces a Bill. Today he says that 40,000 complaints have been received. An hon. Member says, "Yes, 40,000 complaints, but in how many cases did the people concerned refuse to have anything to do with the Department on a basis of voluntary cooperation?" What does the Postmaster-General say? He replies, "I do not know. I will try to find out." The next question asked of him referred to similar legislation in other countries. He was asked which were the countries and what was the legislation. He replied, "I do not know. I will find out." Is it proper that when the Government propose a Bill such as this, these absolutely vital considerations should not have been completely known by the Assistant Postmaster-General and his right hon. Friend? [Interruption.] If that is a laughing matter for hon. Members opposite, then there is a great division of view between us on that point, and there always will be.
Wireless equipment is a most expensive matter today, especially in the rural districts where there are a large number of very old sets and where there is not much likelihood of the people being able to afford new sets. The cost of the wireless licence for people with small incomes like the old-age pensioner presents a heavy burden. I know of cases where people have had to give up their sets because of the expense. If the Government carry this Measure which forces extra burdens upon such people without any question of repayment, then this is a bad Bill. I trust that His Majesty's Government at the very last moment will take the Bill back, spring-clean it, have another look at it and introduce it again. It is not a satisfactory Bill and, in my humble view, the Government have not given sufficient time to study its implications in a proper manner.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Mack: Like some other hon. Members who have already spoken, I am very naive about the technical side of this Bill. I am one of those who actually listen to the radio. Like most people, I listen in order to seek information, and to be abreast of the news. I like to listen to boxing matches, to enjoy the excitement of the brilliant and dramatic programmes which are sometimes given. Occasionally I like to hear "Itma." Perhaps I shall not be misunderstood if I say that that is one of the most brilliant and outstanding programmes in the world. I also like to hear many other "high spots," and on occasion even listen to the Third Programme.
I am sure that everybody in this House will admit that if, as happens particularly in thickly-populated, congested areas, their hearing is to be vitiated and their enjoyment spoiled, some steps should be taken to deal with the difficulty. If interference is caused by fortuitous circumstances which cause hideous noises, crackling, frizzling, blasting, blurting and all the other awful sounds which are associated with bad listening—if that happens, the Postmaster-General, like a good father and protector who looks after this great family of 11 million households who listen to the radio, must do something to help these people who are in distress and difficulty. Many of us do not like pettifogging and puerile complaints which


may be of very short duration. I live in a block of flats, and sometimes pick up the telephone and apply my ear to it. Though this is not strictly relevant to the Bill, it does show that there is much work to be done in the Postmaster-General's Department. I hold the instrument within an inch of my ear, and, having overcome the first nervousness——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): As the hon. Gentleman has said, this has nothing at all to do with the Bill.

Mr. Mack: With: great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I never said it had nothing to do with the Bill; I said it was not strictly relevant.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be strictly relevant.

Mr. Mack: Knowing that all good Deputy-Speakers, particularly in the early stages of what I hope will be a long and illustrious career, are anxious that Debates should be conducted with rectitude —[Interruption.]I still have the Floor of the House, I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. Knowing that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are perhaps——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will now confine himself to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Mack: Thank you, Sir. I did not intend to mislead, and I am sorry if I have been misunderstood. When one puts the telephone instrument to one's ear, one sometimes has to endure an awful succession of noises, due, I am told, to faulty mechanism. That could also apply to a radio set, and, in the cases where it does apply, it is natural that people should feel aggrieved and send in complaints to the Postmaster-General. Although my right hon. Friend admits having received something like 40,000 complaints a year, I am quite confident that, if all those people who had a legitimate cause to complain had done so, they would be very considerably in excess of that number, and might well be 100,000.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who possesses such human qualities, is very anxious to put matters right and to protect the people from what may be quite unwarrantable interference. That was why he said—and I do not know

whether it was weakness or excessive generosity—that, if hon. Members on either side of the House could make practical suggestions to him, whereby he could attain the objects of this Bill by other methods, he would be very pleased to give such suggestions sympathetic consideration. That gesture on the part of my right hon. Friend proves that he is not here to ride roughshod over people, nor for the purpose of securing a Bill the object of which is to trespass into the sacred precincts of people's homes. I am all for the sanctity of the home, and I believe that no one should, without very good reason, be prepared to go into the homes of the people for the purpose of interfering with the normal lives of the citizens.
Surely, however, where there is no doubt whatever that, whether by selfishness on the part of some people or by the use of faulty apparatus, they are causing concern and depriving others of their legitimate pleasures, and, further, after they have been warned and have disregarded the warning, on the action of the magistrates, there is very good cause, in the very few instances that may arise, for such powers to be granted. In practice, we shall find very few people who will continue to commit this offence, and for that reason I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. After having been so warned, if they continue to cause great discomfort and interference with the legitimate pleasures of other people, there will be few who will deny the right of the Minister to have access to their homes. Such a Measure should have the full backing of hon. Members on all sides. This is not a controversial Bill at all, but a matter of common sense.
I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has had some advice on this matter. What do the radio engineers of the B.B.C. say about it? I presume that he has been advised by them, but that they are in some doubt as to what he can do, and I can only conclude, as one without any particular technical knowledge on the subject, that, as the result of consultations which have taken place, it has been decided that the only thing to be done is to provide some measure of enforcement in this Bill that will make people realise that we are going to tackle this matter very seriously. There are misanthropes who


live selfishly and make themselves objectionable, and I can see nothing more in this Bill than a genuine desire to provide for the comfort and happiness of others.
I notice there is a question involved concerning ships at sea and things of that kind, of which I did not know anything until this afternoon; for example, that quite innocent apparatus might affect the operation of electrical devices in ships at sea and might even affect life saving. I did not know, either, that the landing of aircraft might be affected. I am surprised that these aspects of the matter were not put before the House earlier. That being so, I cannot understand how anybody can dispute the matter, and I think that the only thing which the Postmaster-General can do is to tackle it in the way in which he has done so.
This Bill seems to me to be quite innocuous. It certainly is not political. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) opposite is very artful, but I detect behind that smiling countenance a warmth of humanity which lends colour to his speeches. I know that he is a formidable opponent, but his usual practice is to look at legislation which comes before this House and say to himself "I think this is going to be rather easy this afternoon, and so I shall have a go and see if I can put the Minister off his balance." That is all right concerning normal controversial Measures, but here we have an innocuous and perfectly innocent proposal.
I hope this Bill is going to do much good to my right hon. Friend and everyone else as well, because I assume that the Minister himself listens to the radio from time to time and will benefit as much as anybody else. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members opposite will not whip and lash themselves into a fury of resentment against some suspected piece of political artifice which they may imagine is in the Bill, and take the matter to a Division. If they do, of course, we shall be very happy to defeat them in the Lobbies. I hope, however, that they will give this Bill their blessing, because it is something which is intended to protect the pleasures of millions of humble and worthy citizens against interference by crackles, noises

and all those awful things which are sometimes heard on the radio. I, therefore, hope they will support the Bill.

5.40 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: I intervene for only two or three minutes. Although I endeavoured to trace the course of the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack), I am afraid that I was unable to follow the complexities of it. I disagree with his closing remark that this is an innocuous Bill, but I agree very heartily with the remark which he made earlier, to the effect that we are not to imagine that the Postmaster-General has come here determined to ride roughshod over the liberties of the British people, and so on. We know the right hon. Gentleman far too well to suspect him of any such intention.
In common with every other Member of the House, I believe that the problem of radio interference has to be dealt with, but I join in the plea which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) who moved the Amendment, that the Government should rely for the moment upon the powers they already have and that they should not seek to obtain the very wide, undeniably wide, powers which Parts II and III of the Bill would confer upon the Postmaster-General, without further reflection both upon the problem itself and on the implications of the solution which they are putting forward. I make that plea because, having listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I could not escape the feeling, which was voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), that the Bill has been produced without that careful study of all the issues involved, which certainly should have been made before the Minister made himself responsible for detailed legislation.
In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he was good enough to allow me to interrupt him to ask whether he could give us information about legislation passed in other countries to deal with the problem, and what was the character of that legislation. I must say that it was a shock to me to find that the Minister was completely unprepared to deal with what I thought was an


obvious question which every Member of this House should have been ready to ask. I would like to put the House in possession of what I have every reason to think, to the best of my information, the facts are in this matter. Four countries have passed legislation dealing with this problem—Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland. There is no legislation of this kind in operation in America, except in one or two small towns which have local ordinances covering the matter within their own boundaries. In the four countries I have mentioned, the legislation does not deal with the suppression of interference of the type of extremely short wave radio which I know the Minister had in mind, and which he referred to in connection with television and radar. It deals with the suppression of interference with ordinary radio reception by the ordinary set.
That legislation deals with the matter not in the way which the Bill proposes, by placing upon the user of the apparatus a responsibility for suppressing the interference. It deals with the problem by making it obligatory upon the manufacturers who desire to sell apparatus in those countries, to fit that apparatus with some suppressing device. The fitting of suppression devices, I am informed—and I must join other hon. Members in not claiming any scientific and technical knowledge for myself, and in speaking at second-hand—for ordinary radio is a much less difficult and complicated business than the suppression of the interference which the right hon. Gentleman has particularly in mind. Throughout his speech I was struck with the obvious internal evidence that the matter had not received the careful technical consideration which it merits. For example, there was no indication, when the Minister was talking about the possibility of calling on the users of apparatus to fit proper suppressors, that he realised that to fit the existing apparatus with suppressors would cost anything from 10 to 15 times as much as to fit suppression devices to the apparatus in the course of manufacture; but surely that is a very material point.
A second thing which astonished me was that the Minister chose, apparently quite deliberately, to base the examples which he gave about how the Bill would work upon the case of the electric iron.
Does the Minister know, and has he been informed by his technicians that the suppression of interference from the electric iron is a problem which has baffled the scientists all the way through and that it is by far the most difficult problem that the technicians have to face from any domestic apparatus. Does the Minister know that, in spite of many years of research by the British Standards Institute and by the research organisations connected with the electrical industry into the problems of domestic utility articles, the effective suppression of the electric iron involves a suppressor very nearly as big as the iron itself and costs considerably more?
That is the kind of fact which seems to me to be very material in the consideration of the Bill, which would place in the hands of the Postmaster-General powers which he says he does not intend to operate widely but which, for purely technical reasons, he would find it virtually impossible to exercise in the vast majority of cases. There are many makes of domestic appliances. To fit suppressors to many of them would cost sums of money far beyond the reasonable power of the users. Many of those appliances are old and have been in use for some time, and suppressors cannot be fitted to them at all, so far as technical knowledge goes at the present time.
I suggest to the Minister that he should abandon for the moment this whole idea of trying to enforce suppression of interference by regulations governing the user of apparatus, that he should take back Parts II and III of the Bill, and that he should reconsider the whole problem in the let of the experience which other countries already have where they have tackled the problem. Surely the experience of those other countries is worth consideration? He should consider the problem afresh from the technical angle and, as was said earlier in the Debate, not come to the House with a cut-and-dried Bill before he has discussed the matter with the manufacturers who produce the articles. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that those manufacturers have a great deal of most valuable information in their research departments and that it would enable him to look at the problem from a more practical point of view.
The impression one gets is that the Bill has been conceived inside a Government Department where probably all they know about a suction cleaner is how to switch it on and how to empty the bag; that the Bill has not had close consideration by technical experts who, 1 know, are available; and, above all, that it has not been regarded from the realistic point of view of how its provisions are likely to impinge upon the ordinary lives of people who use these pieces of apparatus. I appeal to the Minister to look at the problem again. The House will be ready at any time, I am sure, to give him any reasonable powers which he can show to us are essential for carrying out the duty which is laid upon him to protect not only the television user who wants amusement abut much more vital interests, some at least of which he indicated to us this afternoon.
I do not want to appear hostile in any way to the principle of this Bill, but I beg the Minister, before he seeks these wider powers over the individual liberty and conduct of humble citizens, to look at the problem again, to take realistic advice, not merely from the highly skilled scientists but from the practical technicians and manufacturers, and then come to this House again with a Measure differently conceived. Then I am certain that from all sides of the House he will receive all the support he desires.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. M. F. Titterington: I am sure that the Postmaster-General will be in a position to rebut the arguments of the hon. Member who represents the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe), and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will reassure the House that there has been a thorough and competent inquiry made into this matter. The observations of the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) interested me also. Although he made an interesting speech in support of the Amendment, he lacked imagination. This Bill is an imaginative Bill in the sense that it looks forward. In those days when we shall be televising the last of the Tory Party, if some plutocrat nearby with an electric refrigerator puts it on and seriously disturbs the television, the Government will be accused of a new form of cold war. Seriously, however,

one might say that the Bill has regard to the difficulties with which the Postmaster-General has to contend and will have to contend.
When reading the Bill I was struck by the first observation in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that Part II "breaks new ground." That is not exactly the connotation one would associate with electrical matters, but the approach to the problem intrigued me. The Postmaster-General spoke about the pivotal part of the Bill being Part II. I listened carefully when he outlined his proposals and when he submitted respectfully to the House that there were new grounds for the experimental periods with which we shall have to contend. In that regard he and his Department showed a foresight which is characteristic of the Labour Government in this House. My right hon. Friend also stressed the desirability of passing legislation which will safeguard the national and international exchanges involved in wireless telegraphy. If there is one matter upon which many things hang nowadays, it is the intercommunications of the world, and if we can anticipate difficulties by a Bill of this type, a service will be done not only to England but to humanity as a whole, in avoiding the international complications which interference might arouse.
The Postmaster-General said that he was protecting the listener and was seeking through this legislation to prevent interference from ordinary electrical equipment. In other words, he brought the matter down to earth; he translated it into workshop and everyday domestic practice. One anticipates an enormous development in electrical equipment. If the proposals now before us regarding the organisation of industry and electrical expansion are to materialise in the near o future, there is bound to be a formidable expansion in electrical equipment, appliances and generation, for which one has to legislate in anticipation.
My right hon. Friend said that he was not legislating merely in the interests of pleasure, but in the interests of safety of life. That sounded a note of seriousness, even if there were a disposition to be facetious. It happens that I was interested in the development of civil aviation in connection with my own city, and I know that the expansion of civil aviation on the Yorkshire moorlands was


conditioned by inability to use the correct type of instruments which would safeguard the landing of aircraft in that neighbourhood. Such things as radar should not be interfered with, and I agree with the Minister that no interference can be justified when it is a question of the safety of life.
My right hon. Friend referred to domestic appliances and he disposed of the arguments of hon. Members opposite relating to the dealers and distributors on whom the original responsibility should or could rest. My right hon. Friend concedes that point, that it does not rest upon the distributors of electrical equipment or appliances but upon how the user uses them. He also referred to cinemas diathermy, and so on. In view of the enormous expansion of electrical distribution and utilisation, the Minister is making a sound proposal in his Bill. He finished his observations by saying that the Government are broad-minded and will consider any workable suggestions. Can the Opposition offer any reasonably-grounded criticism of such an assurance? Paragraph (b) of Clause 11 (1) states that if the Minister is satisfied
that the use of the apparatus is likely to cause undue interference with any wireless telegraphy.…
That seems to me to be capable of an elastic interpretation.
In my own mind, I feel that this is a
Bill which takes a step in the right direction. It is far-sighted. It has good intentions. It seeks to regulate, in the imponderable world of wireless telegraphy, the wireless waves. Just as we have had to regulate traffic on the ground, the Minister, with almost Wellsian accuracy, is seeking to regulate in the atmosphere the wireless waves, and I congratulate him on the Bill and have the greatest pleasure in supporting it.

6.0 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I want to say only a few words about the Bill. The House recognises the tremendous urgency of this matter and the fact that the Postmaster-General is responsible to the House for dealing with it. It is, therefore, obvious that a Bill of some sort is necessary.
I am very much concerned about that part of this subject which deals with safety of life. I think these powers are justified and only justified if they can be proved

to be necessary to safeguard life—that is to say, through navigational aids by sea or in the air. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), who spoke from the Front Bench on this side of the House, made it perfectly clear that nobody on this side opposes the principle of the necessity for dealing with these matters, which are increasing in complexity every year. The Postmaster-General has one of the ablest engineers in this country or any other country in Mr. Gill. He is a man whose advice and views we all respect, I think, and I have no doubt he has been consulted on this subject, but there is also a great deal to be said to suggest that if this action can be taken in stages, the result will be much more satisfactory.
The Minister of Health is in his place and before he came into the House he was mentioned in connection with hospitals. There is no doubt that electrical apparatus in hospitals is the cause of far more interference than anything else. The curious thing is that most of the big airfields are situated in places where their approach is over one of the new hospitals which are springing up on the outside of cities rather than in the inside of cities. The consequence is that the risk of interference is very great. I would like to ask the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to remedy this, because hospitals are undoubtedly the cause of more interference than anything else. I imagine the cost of remedying it would be very great. I feel it is a mistake for any' Government Department to come to this House to ask for powers unless we are sure that the Government Departments themselves—or the institutions associated with them; that is the more correct way of putting it—intend to take the lead.
If we turn to the question of navigational aids at sea, we learn that certain experiments are now being made which, as far as they have gone, are proving highly successful. A great deal of money has been spent on these experiments, voted by this House, so as to enable vessels in narrow waters to keep the channel by radar. If we are to make that an effective service, we must safeguard the banks on either side of the approach to the harbour, and if it is proved that there is any interference with navigational aids, full power should be


given, to ensure that suppressors must be fitted, by compulsion. I think every power should be given to the responsible Minister to see there is no interference.
To that extent, therefore, I agree with the Bill, but I beg the Government to pay attention to what has been said on this side of the House, because I feel there is a great deal more which can be done by consultation with manufacturers. Further, I do not believe any hon. Member in any part of the House wants the Government now to have any more powers of search and entry. I believe the general public and every hon. Member on this side would accept these powers if they dealt only with safety of life. There are certain airfields which it is already a danger to approach in thick weather because of this interference. It is ridiculous to suppose that any hon. Member would be averse from giving the Postmaster-General all the powers necessary for him to deal with that, but surely it is fantastic to suggest that he needs to take a steam hammer to crack a nut as in the case of some poor old lady who has a television set, while another old lady in the same block of flats has an electric iron. That case seems to me to be in quite a different category and, therefore, needs to be dealt with in quite a different way.
If it is true that the electric iron is one of the most disagreeable things, causing a great deal of interference, surely the solution is to consult the manufacturers of irons and try to get something done that way without coming to the House and demanding these wide powers. The Postmaster-General has the good will of this House and his Department has responsibilities placed upon it by this House. If he would consider the question again, therefore, and if the Leader of the House would consider how much more satisfactory it would be to let us all approve something which we want, then I am sure that would be a better way of tackling the subject. We do not like this power of search in cases which are not connected with questions of safety.
The Postmaster-General has placed us in a great dilemma. I understood that the Leader of the House indicated that the point will be considered in Committee, but if he can rise in his place now and tell us that he does not propose to

exercise these powers except in cases of danger to life or danger to navigation, if he would take the Bill back and reconsider Part II, then I am sure he would have everyone with him. There is, of course, a great urgency to get this Bill through. I know that. The whole House thinks that in general it should be passed, but surely we do not want to include in the Bill all these powers; they are not popular and I do not believe they are necessary.
It has been suggested, in connection with motor cars and lorries, that it would be very simple to put a Clause into the Bill that a licence would not be given to any vehicle, as road-worthy, unless it had a suppressor fitted. Surely, that is very simple. These vehicles are the cause of a great deal of interference and I believe if such an action were taken on Committee stage, and if the Postmaster-General said he would accept such an Amendment, he would find a great many of his troubles remedied as far as television is concerned. I certainly hope and believe that television will expand.
I am afraid there is some confusion in the minds of some hon. Members between radio and radar. Radar is one of the things in which I am most interested. These short wave matters are far more difficult to deal with than anything else. If the Postmaster-General wants to make a division of this subject it might be made on those lines.
Speaking generally, as one who is anxious to help, I beg the Government not to put us into this difficulty by attaching these penalties to matters which are of very small importance compared with the vital question of taking full power to protect life and navigation by sea and in the air.

6.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I wish to take up a point raised by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). It seems that different hon. Members of this House have different ideas as to what is the main cause of interference within the ambit of the Bill which we are now discussing. The hon. Member for Abingdon has suggested that the Bill might be amended to provide that every motor car or lorry in this country should be compulsorily fitted with some device which would overcome the problem of interference. It has not been made as


clear as it might be that one effect of this Bill will be to impose this obligation upon every motor car user in the country. The word "apparatus" is used in the Bill.
"Apparatus" is the kind of word I personally do not like: it is one of those omnibus words which might include anything and everything, and it is not clear from my reading of the Bill whether the word
"apparatus," in Clause 11, for example, does in fact include motor cars.
It is being argued by motorcar users that the proper remedy is not that suggested by the hon. Member for Abingdon —to compel motorists to insert a suppressor device—but to fit television sets with some form of protective device which would make them immune from the interference caused by the use of motorcars. After all, motor vehicles were in use long before the radio receiver was introduced. While I speak subject to correction by technical experts, I should have thought it possible for the radio manufacturers to have designed their apparatus so that it would work properly in such conditions as existed when wireless sets were first introduced on the market.
Under this Bill the Minister will have power to formulate regulations, and in connection with the operation of those regulations an advisory committee will be established. It is not clear, as far as I can see, under the terms of Clause 11 or Clause 14, whether or not the regulations under Clause 10 are to apply to motor vehicles or whether the enforcement regulations of Clause 11 will apply to them. That is a point which I hope my right hon. Friend will consider between now and the Committee stage, if he cannot deal with it tonight. It is clear that Clause 14, which gives powers of search, is intended to apply to motorcar users. Subject to these perhaps minor qualifications, I should like to express my cordial agreement with the Bill, which I think in principle is accepted by all parties in this House.

6.11 p.m.

Brigadier Peto: I came to this House with an open mind on this Bill. There are two matters which I should like to ask the Postmaster-General to make clear. The first is this. I got the impression from both the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member

for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) that there really was no urgency about this matter at all; yet my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) said that this Bill had been brought to the House as a matter of urgency. If this Bill is urgent from the point of view of any threat of war, in which obviously wireless interference would be a far more serious matter and of greater importance than it is in time of peace, then obviously we on this side, in my opinion, must not impede it.
However, if there is no urgency about the matter, and if it is not a question of life or death, or of enemy interference, then I agree with the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, that Part I is entirely agreeable to all, but that Part II must be entirely reconsidered, as dealing with the causes of wireless interference by housewives or by machinery or by motorcars and as having nothing to do with life saving or with interference with aerodromes or with ships. If the hon. Gentleman who is to reply says that this matter is urgent, then I personally would take an entirely different view from that which I hold now.
I have a letter here from a constituent. I want to read one sentence from it, because it will give some pleasure, perhaps, to the Government. It says:
Dear Sir, With reference to the Bill, regret to read that the Conservative Party has decided to oppose this Measure. As one who suffers from this nuisance, with thousands of others, it is my opinion that this is one of the few sensible Bills the Socialist Party has brought forward, and I would beg you not to vote against it.
It may be one of the few sensible Bills the Socialist Party has brought forward, but it would be a more sensible Bill if Part II were entirely reconsidered, and if the question of suppression were dealt with through the manufacturers, as has been suggested in all quarters of the House, rather than by asking those who have already purchased instruments or machinery or motorcars to install at considerable cost and at retail prices suppressors for those instruments or machinery already made and delivered. The question turns on whether this is a vital matter and an urgent matter or not. If it is not urgent, surely the right way to deal with the matter is through the manufacturers.
The second point I want to make is this. The Postmaster-General was good enough to give way to me, and I asked him whether the apparatus referred to in Clauses 10 and 11 meant such things as printing presses—whether printing presses could be fitted with suppressors? He said he thought that means could be found for doing that with printing presses as with other machinery. I am no technician, but I believe that the nuisance caused by machinery in close proximity to wireless receiving sets is far greater than the nuisance caused by casual motorcars. The machinery functions day after day at the same hour every day and very likely in the evening, when one wants to hear the news or to watch the television, if one has television, which I have not; whereas the nuisance caused by motorcars is a casual one caused as they go by. Has the Postmaster-General considered the question of dealing with these machines which are in every factory and in every town? Can they be made innocuous by the fitting of certain gadgets or instruments, or is that beyond possibility, or beyond the scope of the Bill?
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) mentioned the rather vague wording, and in particular the word
"apparatus"; and I entirely agree that this wording is vague. Reading the Bill the first time, I thought that the word "apparatus" referred to electrical apparatus in nearly every case, but on reading it again more carefully, I found that the word "apparatus" could mean apparatus other than electrical apparatus. In no case does the Bill mention what sort of apparatus is referred to. Will the hon. Gentleman who is to reply give me some information about the definition of
"apparatus" in this Bill?
Having mentioned these two matters, I conclude by saying that unless I am satisfied that there is vital urgency for this Measure, and unless there is something that I have not yet heard expounded, then, in the interests of economy alone, and apart from the question of the severity of the penalties that are proposed, or the question of intrusion into a man's home, and the right of search, which I and everyone else in the House dislike intensely, I must vote for the Amendment.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: do not believe that it is a harsh view of the speech that has just been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple (Brigadier Peto) to say that it did not contain anything but wavering allusions, sometimes supporting the Bill and at other times, apparently, doubting the Bill. Indeed, as this Debate has developed, it has become perfectly obvious that the case from the other side has both weakened and wavered. I think that the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) gave what seemed to be a very sound and considered view upon this particular matter. He gave an expert one, too, certainly in regard to one phase of it. He said explicitly—and as I think quite correctly —that this is a matter of tremendous urgency. If that is so, then, of course, the only issue before the House is whether or not the contents of this Bill properly meet that particular issue.
No one who has the most elementary knowledge of this matter can doubt that the element of the safety of life is involved. The mere fact that there have been no accidents due to interference, whilst it is, of course, a merciful matter, is no test at all. The issue is whether the position is one in which the safety of life may be in danger, and if that is so, then not only is it the responsibility, but it is the duty, of the Government to do something in order to meet that particular position.
I think that the hon. Member for Abingdon was also revealing when he said in effect,
"There is really no sound objection to the contents of this Bill except one, and that is that I do not like a search warrant; I do not like authority for people to go into private houses, searching and doing the sort of thing this Bill permits." That, of course, is a point of substance, and no Act of Parliament should contain a provision of that kind unless it is abundantly and inevitably in the public interest that it ought to do so. That need, that prerequisite, must be proved in this House, and the onus of proof is on those seeking to impose that provision. It must be proved that that particular provision is necessary in order to meet what is an urgent matter in the public interest.
One thing is very plain and I am quite sure that right hon. and hon. Members on the other side will agree when I say that this will not be the first time that an Act of Parliament has been put upon the Statute Book which contains machinery to enable a search warrant to be issued and executed. That is perfectly clear. I think that if research is made, it will be found that Tory Governments in the past have been the authors of many such Statutes with such a power. For instance, there is such a provision in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and no one objects to it because it is in the public interest, and it is necessary to safeguard the public in numerous ways. The fact that a Tory Government happened to be in office at the time did not make that provision any the less valuable or necessary.
Under that Act, there is a right to go into anyone's dwelling house, quite apart from other premises—and it applies to all premises—and search that dwelling house, subject only to one pre-condition, which is that 24 hours' notice has to be given; not as much notice as under this Bill, but a very much shorter notice, and covering a very much wider range of objects. No one objects to that because it is a perfectly proper instrument to use in such a case in pursuance of the public interest. There is also a statutory provision that was passed in connection with bank notes. By an Act of Parliament, if anyone is suspected of having bank notes in his possession or his home which he is not lawfully supposed to have, his house can be searched under a search warrant and ransacked from top to bottom under the law.
It is the same with regard to the Children and Young Persons Act, and in connection with bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act. In those cases power to issue a search warrant also exists by Act of Parliament. There is in fact a whole line of Statutes which confer that particular power. The right when it exists is statutory almost all the way through. At Common Law the only right to go into a person's house was in the case of stolen goods. If someone is suspected of having stolen goods, there is the right of search and entry in order to get the goods and to arrest the person suspected to be unlawfully in possession of them. This is not a new or novel provision, and there is no invasion of public right or the normal degree of

freedom about which we have to be apprehensive or on guard.
Of course, all these matters provided for in Part II and Part III of the Bill have to be considered and administered properly. The crucial matter the House has to consider is whether this particular Bill is necessary; that is to say, is there something which, in regard to wireless telegraphy, is such that these provisions are necessary, and, if that is so, are the provisions in the Bill proper and adequate in order to achieve that end? That does not seem to be denied. I have been in the House during the whole of the Debate, except for an interval of some 15 minutes, and 1 have not heard a single argument which rebutted the fact that there is
"interference." If that is so, we get the first premise upon which this Bill rests, because the crucial provisions in this Bill, which are in Part II—apart from the right of search in Part III—are designed to meet and to remedy that particular matter.
What does the Bill propose should be done in that direction? The Postmaster-General has told us something that we all know—that there are many complaints with regard to interference. It has been suggested that, because there are 11 million houses and only 40,000 complainants, it is a very small average. We cannot quantify a thing like this. What we have to consider is not the number of complaints—and, of course, they have to be substantial to justify the Bill—but the area which is affected by the subject matter of the complaint. Everyone knows that for one complaint made there are many score more complaints which are not made, but when there is a complaint everyone knows that there is a very large area of electrical action which is covered and affected by that one particular instance. Therefore, I say—and I do not think it can be contradicted —that it is not a matter of the quantification of these complaints; it is not a comparison between 40,000 complaints and 11 million houses; the test is what is the area affected, what is the effect of the interference complained of?
There are two well-known types of interference. No one would be so foolish or imprudent as to deny that if safety of life is involved, we have to concede at once that something must be done to mitigate it. If that is so, then the effect of it is to concede to the Postmaster-General


that the provision in the Bill regarding it is a good provision. What is the next point? The other line is interference with broadcasting. On the question of broadcasting or radio programmes, there are those who say: "Oh, well, what does it matter? Why should you have these provisions merely to eliminate this interference with the pleasure of listening to broadcasting?"
That comes very ill from legislators who have passed Measures to confer on the public, not only the right to have wireless sets, but also the right to pay for licences for them. It seems to me to come with little grace from this House to say: "Why should we do anything about this part of broadcasting when it is only a question of pleasure?" That must be wrong, and for this reason. Everyone knows that in the case of a public nuisance, whatever it is, there is a right to intervene; the courts can be asked for an injunction, which is granted if the public nuisance is proved. If people are conceded the right to have a wireless, it follows logically and obviously that they must be enabled to receive under the best possible conditions and enjoy the entertainment offered by that wireless, otherwise it becomes an irritation and a farce.
All of us who have a wireless set know very well that there are constant and sometimes bad interferences. Very often on a Saturday night, when listening to a very interesting play, one often experiences interference—always, of course, at the crucial moment—and the pleasure one has deliberately sat down to derive from listening to the play has been spoiled. Does anyone suggest that the public will resent proper action being taken to stop that? Does anyone deny that it is proper to take such action?
What is the action that it is proposed to take in the Bill? First of all, there is no question of a search warrant at all. All the Postmaster-General says is: "I know very well that intelligent people will be reasonable, and if complaint is made they will do something about it, so I shall not bother about the majority of people. However, if there is someone who is not amenable to reasonable action, all I desire to do is to send him a notice about it. I do not want to go into his house; I do not want to do anything drastic: I only want, first of all, to send him a notice. I shall not ask him to do

the impossible, and the law cannot make anyone do the impossible. All I am asking him is to do what he reasonably can in order to stop the interference." One would have thought that any decent, intelligent, reasonable person would take a step like that. After all, a person who owns a wireless set must put up with that sort of thing; he must be good neighbourly and prepared to play his part, with other people, in making the reception of wireless entertainment as effective as possible.
The Postmaster-General says: "If there are people so contumacious, so recalcitrant and so unreasonable, that they will not do that, then I want power to take certain steps to make them do what is reasonable." What does the Minister then say? He says: "I am setting up an advisory committee and an appeal tribunal." Those are both prerequisites which give protection to the public to start with, because the Minister gets advice from his advisory committee on technical matters and the appeal tribunal is a safeguard to the public on the issue whether a person ought to be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill. Then what happens? Assuming that there is reasonable ground, the Postmaster-General can go to a justice of the peace. But he cannot merely go to a justice of the peace and say: "I want a search warrant." There are in the Bill most exacting and protective provisions which adumbrate as clearly as possible that certain things must be done first. He has to demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds; and he has to do so before the magistrate. Anyone who looks at the provisions in the Bill as to searching and a search warrant will see that this Measure is hedged round in every reasonable practicable way in order to safeguard the person against whom proceedings are contemplated before the court. What could be more reasonable, more practical and more sensible than that?
It is admitted that this matter is urgent, that the safety of life is involved, and that there is no reason why people should not comfortably enjoy proper radio entertainment. If a person went to the theatre and someone started making a row which interfered with other people's enjoyment of the performance, would he not be put out? Would anybody object to his being put out? Exactly the same argument applies to the recalcitrant person who is interfering with a whole crowd of people


who desire to sit down peacefully in order to enjoy listening to their favourite radio programme.
It is said—and I was surprised to bear it said—that this Bill will lead to thousands of officials. What nonsense. Thousands of officials will not be necessary. The only people who will be affected by this Bill are the relatively few who want to be awkward, unreasonable, and difficult. Nobody else will be involved. No doubt from time to time people will be guided by the Post Office and experiments will be made with gadgets for the improvement of reception, and cutting out interference, and that kind of thing; but the number of people involved under the Bill will be relatively small. I do not think it is necessary to take up very much more time on this particular subject. [HON. MEMBERS:
"Hear, Hear."] I am very glad to have the assent of hon. Members opposite, because I am certain that the arguments I have put forward are irrefutable. Therefore, I have very great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), if I may say se with respect, occupied a considerable amount of the time of the House in proving, with great cogency, that twice two is four. None of us disputes that there is such a thing as interference. None of us disputes that we have here a problem. And when the hon. and learned Member states, as he did, that it is proper to take proper action we can but gravely agree with him. But the question is: What is proper action?
The hon. and learned Member said, very truly, that the onus of proof rested on the Minister. The fact remains that the Minister has not given us his proof. He may be able to give it; he has so far given us a speech, but he has not so far given us his proof. My hon. Friends have asked the Assistant Postmaster-General, in replying, to tell us what number of these 40,000 complaints met with recalcitrance. I hope he will answer that question. I hope he will also answer the question: Of these 40,000 complaints, in what number of cases was the cause of interference traced, and in what number was it found to be remediable? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commo-

dore Harvey) gave the figures for the one month of June, 1948, from which it seemed that about a quarter of these cases were not traced, and the cause must not have been remediable in many other cases.
The whole argument, from the speech of the Postmaster-General at the beginning to that of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, seems to me entirely to have missed the point of the complaint. The whole argument has been on the assumption that it is a perfectly childish technical problem to settle the cause of interference, and the only problem is these unpleasant recalcitrants who are to be made to toe the line. The fact of the matter is that interference is an extremely queer business, and in many cases we do not know what is the cause of interference. Sometimes it is a very odd cause.
I remember about two years ago turning on the wireless at home and instead of hearing the dulcet voice of Mr. Wilfred Pickles, hearing my neighbour telephoning to his sister. That also happened on a second occasion. I made inquiries about the cause, and I was told that this might happen with an old set but could not happen with a modern one. I believed that until the other day, when I was talking to a friend on the B.B.C. He was given a most modem B.B.C. set to put in his house, and when he turned it on, he heard his wife telephoning from upstairs. It shows that the causes of interference are not clearly known in many cases, certainly not as clearly known as we might be led to believe from this Debate. That is the answer to the mysterious case of Mrs. H., which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston).
The argument of Members opposite is that there is no interference with liberty because this machinery will not be put into motion except where there is widespread interference, when no one will object. What Members opposite have not noticed is the possibility that with the best will in the world, the source of interference may be wrongly located. It may be found that it was not the iron of Mrs. H. which was the cause of the interference but something else. Therefore, it is not a matter of being recalcitrant but of a mistake being made. The


whole argument of Members opposite is based on the assumption that we are objecting to any powers being given to the Government. No one has denied from this side that there is a problem here or has objected to the assumption of powers. What we are extremely hesitant about is the assumption of these very drastic powers of three months imprisonment, and we are very unwilling to allow these powers to be given until we have had a much greater assurance than we have yet received that the problem will be dealt with technically in a competent fashion.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) made a shattering suggestion which would knock the whole case for this Bill and this Debate entirely out of court. He suggested that instead of fitting suppressors to motorcars, electric irons and the other things, a device should be fitted to the radio sets. Who could possibly object to that? If there is something that can be fitted to a radio set which will prevent interference, then we do not want this Bill or this Debate. It is too easy. Why should we put suppressors on machines and motorcars if the difficulty can be got over by putting them on radio sets? If scientists can devise something to put on a wireless set, then the problem is solved.
The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester twitted us because some of us are alleged to have said that this is an urgent problem and others have said that it is not. That is no contradiction at all. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury was that it was not a comparatively urgent problem so far as people's pleasure is concerned, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) believed it was an urgent problem so far as people's safety is concerned. We are willing to join with the hon. Member for Abingdon and give very great powers to the Government if they can show that this is necessary for the safety of life, but at present the situation is we have been told that no accidents have taken place as a result of the absence of these powers, and when we have asked how many cases of recalcitrants there have been, the right hon. Gentleman has not known. That is the astonishing thing about the whole of this Debate.
We are not so dogmatic as to contend that these powers are not necessary, but it is intolerable that we should be asked to give these powers when the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to find out the number of people who have been recalcitrant, which would show us whether or not these powers are necessary. What is so terrifying about this modern legislation is that Members opposite think they have merely, to show that the Government have to do something and then, without any argument at all, they can slip into their Bills the most drastic penalties. For instance, there is this question of three months' imprisonment, which is not a childish thing.
There is another instance also, to which reference has not so far been made. Under Clause 6 of the Bill, foreign ships that contravene the regulations and have so far got along with a fine of £10, now suddenly find that the figure is changed to £100. The right hon. Gentleman does not even refer to this change, but merely says that this Part of the Bill is not controversial—yet the fine is multiplied by ten without any reason being given to the House. These penalties are piled upon the shoulders of the citizens without any explanation being given. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester that the onus of proof is on the Minister, but the Postmaster-General, with all his courtesy, has not given us his reasons, and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will fill in the gaps he has left.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Cobb: Perhaps I ought to disclose an interest in the radio industry with which I have been connected for some time. I should like to say this in regard to the accusation which has been made against my right hon. Friend that he has not prepared his case properly: that hon. Members opposite, with the single exception of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), have shown very little evidence of having prepared their case.
For instance, it has been said on several occasions that manufacturers have not been consulted, whereas to my knowledge the radio industry has been agitating about this for at least 20 years and consultations have been going on with the Post Office all the time. Indeed, the manufacturers of apparatus which causes interference and many


manufacturers in the radio industry wish that something had been done in this connection a long time ago. It is only now that the Postmaster-General has seen fit to amend the 1904 Act. Many people think that amendment of that Act is long overdue. It has also been said that only 40,000 cases come to the notice of my right hon. Friend per year, but I would remind the House that it is only the really difficult cases that go to the Postmaster-General. There are tens of thousands of cases which occur up and down the country throughout the year and are dealt with by ordinary radio technicians and service engineers.
We can take it, therefore, that the total number of people whose enjoyment of television and, more widely, of radio is interfered with is much more than 40,000 per year. During the war the Government then in power saw fit to take very drastic action indeed. Medical apparatus which was
badly needed was put out of operation for weeks until it was properly screened. Radio diathermic apparatus was causing very serious interference indeed to navigation of aircraft, radar and things of that description. I think that one hon. and gallant Member opposite, who is no longer in his seat, at one time commanded a destroyer. He would not like it at all if when navigating in thick fog in the Thames, his radar was suddenly blacked out by interference, when his only hope would be if he had a Merchant Navy navigator on board to get him out of a difficult mess. Cases of medical apparatus in this country causing interference in America have been known, and vice versa.
There is another aspect of this matter which has not been examined, and that is the question of economics. It has been said that the manufacturers of domestic electrical apparatus which may give rise to this interference ought not to be able to put the cost on to the public, but should put it on the apparatus before it comes out of the factory. There is an argument for that, but we must remember that upwards of a million electric irons are sold each year, together with hundreds of thousands of pieces of other electrical apparatus, and that the annual cost to the consumer of fitting suppressors would run into hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. If my right hon. Friend has his way, only the people who are

found to be causing severe interference will have to go to the expense of having suppressors fitted. The cost to the country on a national basis would be less than the cost of the apparatus when fitted with suppressors. This has been done in Sweden, where they have great regard for the danger to human life through electrical apparatus. There, they have thought of a theoretical human finger. Wherever that theoretical finger can go precautions have to be taken by the manufacturers to make sure that the theoretical human being cannot be killed. It has, however, added to the cost of electrical equipment in Sweden to a considerable extent.
Members opposite cannot come here one day and complain that the Government are not helping the development of the home market so that manufacturers can export, and, another day, expect another industry to be handicapped in its home market expansion. There is no doubt that if this interference is not checked, it will have a very severe reaction on the growth of radio, particularly television. Anyone who has seen television in operation, and the interference caused by motorcars, knows that it is very unpleasant, and that if it continues unchecked the purchaser is likely to hand his set back to the dealer and say, "I do not want it." Members say that in order to export it is necessary to develop a good home market. If we do not do something about interference, the home market for radio and television will be held up, because we shall not be able to compete with other countries, notably America. Already, America is producing 60–70 thousand television sets a month, against our 7 to 8 thousand. Despite the lead we gained in 1936 we have lost ground to them. The radio trade is exporting, at present, £1.2 million worth of equipment per month, which is a very considerable addition to our exports, and if interference is not dealt with our export programme will be endangered. From that point of view the Minister is justified in taking action.

Mr. Grimston: As far as the hon. Gentleman's argument about America is concerned, I would remind him that no laws exist there about interference.

Mr. Cobb: Yes, but America is 3,000 miles across; there are not so many people there to the square mile as there are here.
Radio interference is more severe here than it is in America.
My final point is on the question of differentiation of punishment of people who interfere with the amusement of others as against the safety of life at sea and in the air. Members who have dealt with this point have made a case. I think there ought to be some differentiation in the action taken against a recalcitrant person who refuses to stop using apparatus that causes danger to life at sea or in the air, as against the person whose use of apparatus interferes with someone else's amusement. I hope the Minister will give some attention to this matter, and will be able to find a way out of this difficulty.

6.56 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) beyond expressing my regret at having had to listen to his unjustifiable sneer at the Royal Navy ——

Captain Crookshank: A disgraceful remark.

Mr. Cobb: We get a lot of publicity here about the Royal Navy, but the Merchant Navy is rarely mentioned.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: That may be so, but I do not think that gibes at the Royal Navy in favour of the Merchant Navy would be appreciated by the Merchant Navy.
Clause 13 (4) says that:
No criminal proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be instituted in England, Wales or Northern Ireland except with the consent of the Postmaster-General.
I would like to know what the Postmaster-General's position is in relation to offences in Scotland, that is to say, in criminal, and not civil, proceedings? This is an important point. I am not at all sure that there has been careful consideration of the Scottish legal point of view, such as has been given to the English legal point of view, and I would like to know whether the Scottish Law Officers were consulted at every stage in order to make sure that Scottish laws have been observed? If I can have an answer on these points, it would be of great help to us North of the Border.

6.58 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I am very sorry for the Postmaster-General in having been involved in this argument because this Bill was not mentioned in the King's Speech and therefore, despite what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), could not have been considered as being urgent. If I may hazard a guess I suppose that the Government, finding a week in which there was little Business to do, went round to Departments and asked them whether there were any Bills lying around which might be brought forward. It has been done before, and I expect that the technique of the Lord President of the Council is not widely different from that of some of his predecessors. That being so, I imagine that this Bill, which seeks to deal with a problem from a technical point of view, was drafted by a draftsman who had an eye on the predilections of Ministers in this Government to take the maximum powers they could possibly want, and that it was brought forward without having received full consideration from the political angle.
That is the difficulty which faces the Minister today, and which is the cause of our reasoned Amendment against the Bill. Part I of the Bill, with the exception of one or two points which have been raised, is a re-writing of an Act which has been continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill for many years. May I say, at this point, that I am not quite sure whether we are in Order in discussing it, or even having it before us, because it is in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which is now going through Parliament. I have just thought of that one, and I am tempted to ask you, Sir, whether the Bill is in Order at all. Indeed, I will ask it. The Expiring Laws Continuance Bill has just had its Third Reading here, and is now before another place and is, therefore, within the consideration of Parliament. That being so, Sir, you may think it right to rule that the whole of Part I is out of Order.

Mr. Speaker: I am unable to answer that at short notice, but I think it is in Order.

Captain Crookshank: Then we shall proceed, Sir, as your first view is that you


think it is in Order. We will continue to discuss it, but will reserve our right to consider later whether something should be done about this part of the Bill. I admit frankly that I have only just thought of it, and it is for that reason that I was unable to give you notice.
In so far as the Bill covers only what
is covered by the existing law, there is not likely to be much argument about it, but we are in a dilemma about the other part of the Bill. If there is a problem, it is the business of Parliament to solve it, but how far the grievances are of such a nature that the enormous apparatus of the law relating to entry and search has to be invoked is quite another problem. That is what is dividing us today. The extent of the problem as given by the Minister is 40,000 complaints. We all know that each complaint must have a wider sphere of interference than the actual complaint itself. The complaint does not relate to one person, because there might be eight to 10 people listening to the wireless at the time. But if that argument is used, we must remember that there are 11 million wireless licences extant, and that probably a great proportion of the 11 million wireless sets are being used every day. So it is not 40,000 versus 11 million; it is 40,000 versus a much larger figure. The right hon. Gentleman says, "You have to divide 40,000 into television and wireless, and the proportion is about one in 15."

Mr. J. Lewis: In rural areas?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman was not here when his argument was blown sky high. The television proportion, said the Minister, was one in 15. That is a very much larger proportion of interference than with ordinary radio. Assuming there are 40,000 to 50,000 television sets, that would come to one in 200, whereas the complaints are one in 15. That is the field in which the greatest interference is brought to the Minister's notice. Put in those proportions it is a comparatively small grievance, although it is maddening enough when it arises, especially if it happens when people wish to listen to a special programme. It might be that the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) had been asked to broadcast "The Week in Westminster," and that all the apparatus of his constituents might be subject to interference that day, so

their one day of enjoyment in life would be spoilt. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two million in five years."] The hon. Member says it is two million in five years, but by that kind of calculation over 10 or 20 years we can build up enormous astronomical figures. Doing that will not make the problem any bigger than it is.
In fact, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to deal with a small problem which is, in fact, one of annoyance, because it affects the interest and amusement of the hearers or viewers. That is all, except for that part of the problem which has been mentioned and so much stressed by the hon. Baronet, as to how far this interference may cause risk to life, whether at sea or in the air, or maybe on the road, for all I know about it. The right hon. Gentleman was inconclusive, and I am not blaming him for that. Maybe he has
no evidence, maybe it does not exist. He said that no accident had been recorded due to interference. Of course, that would not absolve him and his Department from being far-seeing enough to see that if there is a risk it must be dealt with. But nothing has happened yet, so that Parliament has done no harm by its delay in taking up this problem.
There seems to be a simple answer. Why cannot the Government divide the problem, and ask for all the powers which are necessary, and which this House will always give in a case in which safety is involved? We have done it in Road Traffic Acts and all sorts of Measures. As soon as the Minister can say that the danger of this particular problem is such that the life of even one person is at risk, and that the Government require certain powers to deal with it, the right hon. Gentleman knows that, irrespective of which side Members sit upon in this House, Parliament would grant those powers. That is quite different from asking for these enormous powers when it is just a question of enjoyment and amusement. It is not that we do not want to stop interference or that we do not want people to have the best possible reception from their radio sets or the best possible vision from their television sets; of course, we do. But against that we have to weigh, in spite of the attempt of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) to gloss it over, the disadvantages of this tremendous bludgeoning power for which


the Postmaster-General is asking in this Bill.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, having just as much interest as he has in the matter of trying to tackle this problem aright, that I hope he will take back all that part of this Bill and consider it afresh. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is broadminded. The experience which hon. Members have had of him in another Department makes us think that he is broadminded, but there is no sign of it in the Bill as drafted. That is why I say that I do not believe that it has for one moment had adequate consideration at the political level. We cannot go interfering with people, threatening them with imprisonment, heavy fines and the right of search, just because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has pointed out, the neighbour has something wrong with her flat iron. But the Government do not mind bringing forward Measures in which these powers are taken.
One reason is that it is so much easier from the drafting point of view, and from the point of view of a Minister who has not had time to consider all the implications of every section of the Bill, to take large, wide powers rather than to go to the mental trouble about the matter of exact definition. That is much easier than to take the narrow aspect and say, "It is only one little field with which we want to deal, and we will not take the powers over the whole field." The Government have taken the whole lot, and it is for that reason that, although we grant that there is a problem and say that if it is a question of life and death the right hon. Gentleman will have adequate powers granted, we also say that the House ought not to accept the Bill as it is now drafted, a Bill which contains onerous provisions which cannot be justified by the public need. It is not the the public need, it is only the public enjoyment about which we are talking.

Mr. John R. Thomas: And public education, too.

Captain Crookshank: I am told that that is a form of enjoyment. In any case, it does not really affect the remarks which I am trying to make, however unsatisfactory they may be to the hon. Gentleman, Therefore, we say that we should

not give this Bill a Second Reading, because it has onerous provisions which cannot be justified by the public need. They have not been justified yet. If by any extraordinary good fortune the Assistant Postmaster-General is able, in his winding-up speech, to sweep away all our anxieties, then, of course, the situation will be altered, but there is no indication, so far, that that is likely to happen. That is one reason why we do not think the House should give a Second Reading to a Bill which enables the Postmaster-General to force citizens to incur expense and Parliament to invade the privacy of the home.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has not put the cart before the horse. He said in his speech that the Bill would be followed by a discussion with the manufacturers. Surely, that is the wrong way round. Before the Government come to Parliament and ask for drastic powers, they should have exercised all possibilities of discussion with the manufacturers, and should only then, if necessary, have come here and said, "We have tried our best, but nobody will listen to us, or do anything. Will you, the House of Commons, please do something to deal with the problem?" The right hon. Gentleman says that he is going to do it afterwards. I ask him to do it before he proceeds further with the Bill.
On the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, and on the Government's admission, this Measure is not urgent, as otherwise it would have come very early in the King's Speech. It has only come up this week, because the Steel Bill was postponed for seven days, and something had to occupy Parliament on this particular Wednesday. The right hon. Gentleman may think it awkward, but if it is any consolation to him, I remember once having to take back a Bill before the war because the House was not satisfied with it. I survived, and he will survive. In fact, he will come out all the stronger for having bowed to the reasonable arguments put forward today by His Majesty's Opposition.

7.13 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I want, first of all, to hasten to assure the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) that this Bill has not been brought


forward today merely because of the postponement of the Iron and Steel Bill. It is a Bill which has for long been under consideration by the Post Office —indeed, for many years. I would hasten to say also that, as early as 1925, a Bill of this character was found to be necessary. If it was necessary then, surely, with the development of wireless and radar, it is of paramount importance that we should have a Bill of this character in 1948.

Captain Crookshank: Why was it not in the King's Speech?

Mr. Hobson: Because, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman well knows, every Measure is not mentioned in the King's Speech. With his long experience, he should be well aware of that fact.
I think we can say that we have had an exceedingly interesting discussion this afternoon. Quite frankly, I do not think that the Bill has been very badly received. Certainly, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not put forward an alternative. I would stress that their criticism, whilst not being hostile, has certainly brought forward nothing of a constructive character. There are one or two misapprehensions in the minds of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. First of all, there is the general opinion that every bit of apparatus, domestic or industrial, of which electricity is the motive power, or is being used in connection with that apparatus, has, by the passing of this Bill, to be suppressed. That is not true. I say that without any equivocation or qualification whatsoever. Why is it not true? Because, first of all, the electrical apparatus has to be scheduled under regulations which must be presented to this House, and which would be the subject of negative resolutions. Even if the particular piece of domestic apparatus was scheduled, complaints must be registered against it. I want to make that perfectly clear at the outset, and before I reply to hon. Members seriatim.
I wish to stress the logic of our case in introducing this Bill. It deals with some of the difficulties which the right hon.
and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough presented in the form of intervention and in his winding-up speech. We all know that the control of frequencies is carried out internationally, as, otherwise, there would be

complete chaos on the ether. The bands of frequency are set out for broadcasting, for maritime purposes, and for aeronautical purposes. But the fact remains that as a result of certain industrial and domestic apparatus using electricity, they, by the emission of electrical waves at a certain frequency, interefere —and have been proved to interfere —with radar and wireless telegraphy in general. What is more, they cause a tremendous amount of inconvenience to the public at large who use the wireless for the purpose of entertainment. Therefore, we are in the position of having to bring in legislation of this character, because there is no other way of. preventing interference with safety services and wireless by the emission of electrical magnetic energy.
The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) stated that we had made a wrong approach to the problem, although he was very careful not to tell us which was the correct approach. We are still awaiting from hon. Gentlemen opposite an indication of what they consider is the correct approach. The point he raised was the effect on air navigation. He asked whether there had been any accidents as the result of this interference. Quite frankly, we do not know. But what we do know is that in the future, with the development of wireless apparatus and of wireless aids for navigation, there is a great likelihood that, if something is not done in this direction, accidents will occur.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that there is no liaison between the Post Office and the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and that he does not know whether there have been any accidents?

Mr. Hobson: We asked for such information, but we have no evidence that there have been any such accidents. It may well be that those who could give such evidence were killed in the crash.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether, because of such interference, aircraft have been taken off their course, or navigation interfered with?

Mr. Hobson: We cannot say definitely, but for reasons which I have already indicated —the fact that domestic and in dustrial apparatus can emit electricity at


the same frequency as that used for aircraft wireless —there is always the possibility. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must know from his own experience that that is quite likely, and that it would put the aircraft off the beam.
I have been asked by one or two hon. Members to give the number of people who have refused to co-operate. Both the hon. Member for Westbury and the hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough raised that point. I am informed that throughout the country for the first nine months of this year there were 500 people, out of 16,000 cases investigated, who refused to co-operate.
I now come to the question of complaints raised by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd). The figures have been given both by my right hon. Friend and by subsequent speakers. They are of the nature of 40,000 a year. We know full well that there is a far greater number who are affected but who do not complain. He then said that no other country had tackled this problem. That is not true. There is legislation in France, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland to deal with this very problem, and, as far as the United States of America are concerned, I do not think I can do better than read the following extract from their Act of 1934. It provides that:
No person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or the transmission of signals by radio within any State when any interference is caused.
If anyone contravenes any part of the Act legal action will be taken to stop him doing so. I think it is proved beyond a peradventure that there is legislation in the United States to deal with this specific problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) made a very useful contribution and pointed out the effect of this interference on television. It is perfectly true, but we are not only concerned with television. We are concerned also with the fact that the emission of this electrical energy affects not only television but wireless, as
many hon. Members know from their own experience. Quite recently an hon. Member came to the Department because of the interference which was being caused in a big block of flats due to the operation of a faulty motor in the lift. We have had similar complaints from

people who get interference from thermal blankets. All this has been proved.
Then the question of trawlers was raised, and it was said that it is an offence to listen in to trawlers. That is just not true, as the hon. Member will discover if he cares to read the Bill. Trawlers are permitted to use wireless on a given frequency, and obviously that frequency is not one which is allocated for ordinary broadcasting, but if perchance the regulation is broken on a trawler and the hon. Member hears on his radio set the spokesmen on the trawler, that does not constitute an offence in any shape or form within the Act.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) referred to the question of interference to navigational aids. I have already dealt with that point and have explained to him that while it cannot be proved that such interference has already happened, there is the possibility that in the future, for reasons which I have indicated, a very serious misfortune could befall an aircraft because of the similarity of frequencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) made a very helpful contribution to the Debate. He spoke of the legal position as it affects anybody who commits or who is likely to commit an offence under the Act, and he referred to Clause 11 (4). I hasten to assure him that in Committee we shall have a look at that point again, but in fairness to my right hon. Friend, I must say that if we failed to secure a conviction in certain sets of circumstances, we should obviously not apply to the courts for power of entry should the circumstances not change.
I now come to the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall). Quite plainly, I fail to understand what he was getting at —and I listened to him very carefully. The only tangible point that he seemed to make was that there had been no real consultation with anybody but experts. That is not true. There has been consultation with manufacturing interests and with practical people. In the Post Office we have some very valuable engineers, not only in the research field but in the field of application. As for the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack), who seemed thoroughly to enjoy himself in the short contribution which he made,


but which unfortunately was not very relevant to the Bill —I see he is not in his place at the moment —I hasten to assure him that we do consult with the B.B.C. and that we are on exceedingly good terms with the engineers of the B.B.C. At the same time, I would remind him that we in the Post Office, too, have our own engineers to deal with this problem.
The hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) asked why we were taking these powers. The fact is that at the moment we have no powers of entry, and that is why we are seeking them. We cannot do anything with regard to apparatus which is causing interference unless we have got the powers of entry. This is not merely for the purpose of prosecuting anybody —that would be the last resort —but to help people get over this interference which is affecting not only their neighbours but themselves. He referred to the question of legislation in other countries. I have already dealt with that, and have read out the appropriate Section of the American legislation.

Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. Can he tell us if the American legislation or any other legislation contains these powers of entry?

Mr. Hobson: The powers of entry relate to the question of interference, and it is quite safe to say that one cannot prove interference from domestic apparatus unless there is the power of entry.

Mr. Grimston: Does the American legislation contain that power?

Mr. Hobson: That is not quite relevant. The point is that they are faced with the problem and they have taken legislation. Even if we assume that there is no legislation in any other country that is no reason why we in Britain should not take the necessary legislation, particularly as it affects safety of life in the air. We have always been in the forefront in matters of this sort.

Sir H. Webbe: I hope the Minister will allow me to correct what I am sure is quite an unintentional misrepresentation of what I said. I certainly did not say that there was no legislation in other

countries. In fact, it was my privilege to inform the House, when the Minister himself had said that he did not know, exactly in which countries legislation did exist and the character of that legislation. If I may correct the Assistant Postmaster-General, I would like to tell him that there is legislation also in Denmark, which apparently he does not know, and that the legislation in France is not in fact in force or enforceable. If the Minister is going to make any great point about legislation in other countries, I hope he will acquaint himself correctly of the facts.

Mr. Hobson: I admit I misquoted the hon. Gentleman. I am aware that there is legislation in Denmark, and I thought I said so in the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Westbury.
I now come to the general question which was raised by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). He referred to cases in which we had to deal with recalcitrant people, and I have already given the figures which were asked for. There are cases in which people can deliberately cause interference through spiteful motives. Leaving open the door of a refrigerator can cause interference and inconvenience not only to the person owning the refrigerator but to many other people. In cases of that sort, surely we are entitled to take the necessary measures. As to the point concerning Scottish law, I am informed that the appropriate authority is the Procurator Fiscal, but if there are any doubts in the mind of the hon. Member who raised this point, he can bring them to our attention on the Committee stage.
I now come to the general question of the terms of the Amendment. The Amendment says:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which contains onerous provisions that cannot be justified by public need.
I think one is entitled to ask what are the onerous provisions. I suppose it would be said that the onerous provisions will arise in cases where people whose apparatus cause interference refuse to disconnect their apparatus or go to the necessary expense of preventing the interference. But are these conditions really onerous? Let us examine them. In most cases the remedies can be easily applied for the


expenditure of a very small amount of money. For a motorcar the sum involved is something like ls. 6d. or 1s. 9d. per cylinder. Interference which is being caused
by domestic appliances can be prevented by the expenditure of a sum in the region of 30s. With industrial apparatus and processes, as far as electric motors and the thermal treatment of materials is concerned, here, again, the expenditure in preventing the nuisance would be quite modest.

Mrs. Middleton: Would that mean an expenditure of 30s. for every piece of domestic electrical apparatus operating in the home?

Mr. Hobson: No, that is not so. In many cases the sum of 30s. would cover the cost of preventing interference from every single piece of apparatus in the home, by means of the insertion of condensor coils in the leads.

Sir H. Webbe: I am sure that the Assistant Postmaster-General does not wish to mislead the House, but can he tell us that it is possible to screen any electric iron for 30s.? If so, I can offer him a very high position in a dozen high grade electrical apparatus firms.

Mr. Hobson: My information is that the interference can be stopped by the expenditure of a very modest sum of money. In answer to the hon. Baronet, let me say that there are now being advertised irons which do not interfere with wireless reception. Therefore, the large sum of money implied by his question is incorrect. I am bound to pay attention to the information I receive on the cost of preventing these interferences.
Medical diathermy apparatus is a notorious offender. Many hon. Members have complained about the interference to their wireless and television from such appliances. We do know the means of overcoming this difficulty; we can allocate the frequency on which the medical diathermy set will operate and, what is more important, we can also screen the apparatus. At present, however, we have no powers to do so, and that is why we seek the powers which this Measure contains.
Fines have been criticised as being too heavy. That may be so, but it is another aspect which can be dealt with in the

Committee stage. I would point out, however, that the amounts referred to are the maximum, and not the minimum, fines. Nobody will say that, in the case of a person wilfully causing interference —where it is proved, and where it jeopardises the lives of sailors, airmen, or passengers —such a fine is too heavy.
We must appreciate that great developments lie ahead of us for wireless aids both to shipping and to aircraft. There are the developments now taking place, for instance, in the Isle of Man and on the Mersey, so that ferry boats may operate during fogs; but the value of the radar can be reduced considerably by interference which, we should remember, can come not only from the household, but from industrial establishments. The safety of public services is of paramount importance and without this Measure we cannot ensure that these wireless aids will be able to function. For these reasons, therefore, I ask hon. Members even at this late hour to consider their position vis-à-vis the Amendment.
The expenditure of money by private people is referred to in the terms of the Amendment. But is there anything particularly revolutionary about this? One can say, first, that it is a social debt and, second, as has been pointed out already by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) that a person must maintain the drainage system of his house in proper condition or otherwise he is subject to penalties. Furthermore, the owner of a motorcar must ensure that his brakes and silencer are effective. No great change, therefore, is contemplated. A fair analogy to our asking people to incur the proposed expense was the action taken to make it compulsory for cyclists to carry rear lights.
We have been asked repeatedly by many hon. Members what we are doing in the way of consultation with manufacturers. There have been such consultations, and we want them to take place at the source of the problem, but the difficulties which have been enunciated by my right hon. Friend this afternoon are not just as simple to get over as the mere statement of the fact. There are, for example, questions of frequencies and voltages and, furthermore, the natural tendency to determine the most stringent requirements. And


apparatus which may cause a nuisance in one part of the country may not do so elsewhere. It will be seen, therefore, that it is impossible for us to take the proper steps without this Measure, but we shall, of course, continue our efforts in the direction of consultations. This, too, is a point which can well be raised in Committee.
Let me say, finally, that the Bill is necessary for dealing with the present evil. In addition, it envisages difficulties which are likely to occur in the future. I plead with hon. Members to give it a Second Reading and let us, on the Committee stage, deal with the points which they have raised, in order that we may have a really workable Measure with which to deal.

Mrs. Middleton: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down may I put to him a question regarding domestic apparatus? Nowadays a good many patriotically-minded women put off their ironing, their cooking with electric cookers and washing with electric washers until the evening, in order to help the nation. That would probably interfere with the reception of wireless and television in a neighbour's

house. Am I to understand that these housewives, by this Bill, may be involved in an expenditure of up to about 30s. per piece of apparatus, because they are trying to help the nation by using their electrical appliances during the evening?

Mr. Hobson: The answer to that question is straightforward: No.

Mr. Charles Williams: I would like to support what the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) has said. She said it only very gently and mildly, but I think it is about time that the Government gave up these petty persecutions of the ordinary housewife. I am very glad that the hon. Lady has spoken on this subject. I certainly give her full support and I hope she will have the courage and honesty to come into the Lobby against the Government on this particular Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 96.

Division No. 2.]
AYES
[7.38 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Coldrick, W.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Collick, P.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Collins, V. J
Gibson, C. W.


Allan, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Gilzean, A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Corlett, Dr. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Attewell, H. C.
Cove, W. G.
Granville, E. (Eye)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Cullen, Mrs. A
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Austin, H. Lewis
Daggar, G.
Grenfell, D. R


Ayles, W. H.
Daines, P.
Grierson, E


Bacon, Miss A
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, Rt Hon. J (Llanelly)


Baird, J.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Gruffydd, Prof. W J


Balfour, A
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gunter, R. J


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Guy, W. H.


Barstow, P. G.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Barton, C.
Davies, S O. (Merthyr)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Battley, J. R.
Deer, G.
Hardy, E. A


Bechervaise, A. E.
Delargy, H. J
Harrison, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Diamond, J
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Benson, G.
Dobbie, W.
Herbison, Miss M


Berry, H.
Dodds, N. N.
Hobson, C. R.


Boardman, H.
Donovan, T.
Holman, P.


Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Horabin, T. L


Bowen, R.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hoy, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hubbard, T.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Dye, S.
Hudson, J H. (Eating, W.)


Bramall, E. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Burden, T. W.
Ewart, R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Burke, W. A.
Fairhurst, F
Janner, B


Byers, Frank
Farthing, W. J
Jay, D. P. T.


Callaghan, James
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Castle, Mrs. B A
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Jeger, G (Winchester)


Champion, A. J.
Follick, M.
Jenkins, R. H


Chetwynd, G. R
Forman, J. C.
John, W.


Cobb, F. A
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Cocks, F. S
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)




Keenan, W
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Swingler, S.


Kenyon, C
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Symonds, A. L


King, E. M.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-tdr. E
Orbach, M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kinley, J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Kirby, B. V.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Lang, G.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lavers, S
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thurtle, Ernest


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Pearson, A.
Tiffany, S


Leslie, J. R.
Peart, T. F.
Timmons, J.


Levy, B. W.
Perrins, W.
Titterington, M. F.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Tolley, L.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Proctor, W. T.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Lyne, A. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Viant, S. P.


McAdam, W
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Wadsworth, G.


McEntee, V. La T.
Randall, H. E.
Walker, G. H.


Mack, J. D.
Ranger, J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rankin, J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Reeves, J.
Warbey, W N.


MaLeavy, F
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Watkins, T. E.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Rhodes, H.
Watson, W. M


Mainwaring, W. H.
Richards, R.
Weitzman, D.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Robens, A.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
West, D. G.


Marquand, H. A.
Roberta, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wheatley, Rt. Ho. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Medland, H. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mollish, R. J.
Royle, C.
Wigg, George


Messer, F.
Sargood, R
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Scollan, T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Scott-Elliott, W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Mitchison, G. R.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Williams, D. J. (Neath)




Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Moody, A S.
Sharp, Granville
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Morgan, Dr. H. B
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Morley, R.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Willis, E.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Simmons, C. J.
Willis, Mrs. E. A.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Skinnard, F. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Woods, G. S.


Moyle, A.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wyatt, W.


Murray, J. D
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Yates, V. F.


Nally, W.
Steele, T.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Naylor, T. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)



Neal, H. (Claycross)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Astor, Hon. M.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Bennett, Sir P.
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Head, Brig. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig O


Boothby, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Hollis, M. C.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bower, N.
Hope, Lord J.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Howard, Hon. A.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Scott, Lord W.


Carson, E.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Shepherd, S. (Newark)


Channon, H.
Jennings, R.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smithers, Sir W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Snadden, W. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F.C
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Spearman, A. C. M


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lipson. D. L.
Spence, H. R.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, H. G


Davidson, Viscountess
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Low, A. R. W.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
McCallum Maj. D.
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Maclay, Hen. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Walker-Smith, D.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
While, Sir D. (Fareham)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Medlicott, Brigadier F
Williams, G (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Sir R.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
York, C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gridley, Sir A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B



Grimston, R. V.
Odey, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next. —[Mr. G. Wallace.]

Orders of the Day — WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84. —(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to wireless telegraphy, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) the expenses incurred by the advisory committee to be established under that Act, to such extent as may be determined by the Postmaster-General with the consent of the Treasury, including such sums in respect of the expenses of the members of the committee as may be so determined;
(b) the expenses incurred by the appeal tribunal to be established under that Act, to such extent as aforesaid, including such sums by way of fees or other remuneration to, and in respect of the expenses of, the members or persons acting as members of the tribunal, as may be so determined;
(c) any expenses incurred by the Postmaster-General for the purposes of that Act;

and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Postmaster-General under that Act and any fines imposed for offences under that Act." —[Mr. Wilfred Paling.]

7.50 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to ask the Government to give us a little information on paragraph (c). First, can the Postmaster-General give us any sort of idea of the expenses that may be incurred under this Money Resolution? It will be seen that it says:
any expenses incurred by the Postmaster-General for the purposes of that Act; and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Postmaster-General under that Act and any fines imposed for offences under that Act.
I am sure that the Government have collected some information on this subject. A little time ago we were reminded that this might involve a vast number of officials at some period, and it is only right that we should take this opportunity to get some information on the subject. How many officials will be required for putting this particular part of the Measure into operation?

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I cannot say how many. As the hon. Member will appreciate, the question of manpower is concerned here. As I stated earlier today, a number of our people are already engaged in this business and they ate doing it fairly satisfactorily in the great majority of cases. The cost of this service has been given, and it may be that if things do not go as well as we hope, we may have to put a few more people on to it.

Mr. Williams: Fifty?

Mr. Paling: I do not know how many. It would depend on circumstances and the way things develop. The cost has been given as £125,000.

Mr. Williams: That is not very satisfactory. We cannot be left to live on hope for ever. We as a nation are concerned with manpower, and yet it is proposed under this Bill that a good many new officials will be employed for the purpose of prosecuting the women of this country because of things they do in their homes. All I can say is that I hope none at all will be needed, and that it is a great pity that the Postmaster-General did not definitely promise that he would put only one or two officials to deal with the matter. We are used to the Minister of Food employing a large number of officials. I am glad that the Postmaster-General is willing to cut the number necessary.

Mr. Paling: My hope is to be able to cut down the number.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (WOMEN'S SERVICE)

7.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Army and Air Force (Women's Service) (Adaptation of Enactments) Order, 1948, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
I think the House would wish me to say a few words in explanation of this brief order. The order springs from Section 3 of the Army and Air Force


(Women's Service) Act which was passed earlier this year. That Act made it possible, by means of an Order in Council approved by Parliament, to make adaptations or modifications in either the Army Act or other enactments so far as seem necessary, in view of the fact that there will now be women serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown as well as men. The Act itself provides for the translation of terms connoting the male sex into their appropriate female equivalents, and this reduces the number of alterations which might be necessary.
The House will see that the first schedule to this order deals with such Amendments as it is necessary to make to the Army Act and the Air Force Act. They are three in number. The first merely refers to the ranks in the Women's Services as an obvious and necessary provision. The second provides the one difference that there will be in the code of punishments for men and women under military discipline, namely, that field punishment cannot be applied to women, because, of course, the physical restraint and heavy work which it involves are not appropriate to women members of the Forces. The third alteration is connected with certain recent changes in the Army Act.
The House will know that where a court has made a maintenance order against a man serving in the Forces in favour of his wife, the military authorities may take certain steps to ensure that the order is complied with. It is, therefore, appropriate that in the unlikely but possible case of a court making an order against a woman serving in the Forces for the maintenance of her husband, the same provisions should apply. Part II of the Order in Council deals with certain alterations that it is proposed to make under enactments other than the Army Act and the Air Force Act. I should say at once that all the proposals confer benefits upon women members of the Forces, or in some cases on the surviving relatives of deceased women members of the Forces; in every case it is a provision which confers a benefit on the women members of the Forces which some previous enactment has conferred on male members of the Forces.
For example, Section 4 of the Pensions and Yeomanry Pay Act, 1884, provides that if a widow of a man who is serving

in the Forces dies and if the Service Department has in its possession a sum not exceeding £100 belonging to the estate, the Department may, with the minimum of legal formality, pay that sum to the persons entitled to it. It is quite appropriate that the same provision should apply where the person who dies is not a widow of someone who died in the Forces but the widower of a woman member of the Forces. The Regimental Debts Act, 1893, Section 24, deals with the situation arising should a member of the Forces become insane. The Act gives certain assistance with regard to legal formalities to the wife of such a person in dealing with his affairs, and naturally it is proposed that should a similar misfortune befall a woman member of the Forces, the same assistance in reducing formalities should be available to the husband of that woman member of the Forces.
The Stamp Act, 1891, gives help to the widow of someone who has served in the Forces and who is seeking letters of administration. Once again it is appropriate that the same facility should be available to the widower of a woman member of the Forces. The Finance Act, 1924, confers, in certain circumstances, relief from Death Duties that would benefit the widow of someone who had been in the Forces. Once again the same relief should be available for the widower of a woman member of the Forces. I think that we may take together the last two enactments referred to in the Schedule together, the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, and the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944. Both these Acts confer certain rights and benefits on women who were serving in the Women's Forces that were in existence in 1944 when those Acts were passed. But, of course, the Women's Forces that will be raised under the Women's Service Act, 1948, are not, in law, the same Forces as those referred to in these enactments. In order to prevent members of the Women's Forces from losing, through a mere legal technicality, the benefits and rights which those enactments confer, it is proposed so to alter those enactments that they shall provide for women serving in the Forces dealt with under the Women's Service Act, 1948.
The House will see, therefore, that what is proposed with regard to the Army


and Air Force Act are simply necessary and obvious modifications. What is proposed with regard to the other enactments is to confer in every case on women members of the Forces or on surviving husbands benefits such as have been provided in the past for male members of the Forces or for their widows. I therefore trust that the House will be prepared to approve the draft order.

8.3 p.m.

Brigadier Head: We on this side of the House agree with the Under-Secretary of State that the modifications which this order provides are the logical sequel to previous legislation; nor in principle is there anything with which we quarrel in this Measure. There are, as there were bound to be in a short order of this type, certain anomalies which will come out in the course of time, and no doubt any necessary adjustments will be made. There are one or two small points which do arise, but I am not at all certain that they are worth raising at this stage, because they are all of rather doubtful value, and I have no doubt that these small matters of detail will be smoothed out as experience proceeds.
It seems to me perhaps of doubtful value to create a means whereby a court order can be put out to ask a lady indefinitely to keep her husband. I think that such a custom is almost universally deplored in modern society and has often been referred to in most unparliamentary language. In short, we on this side of the House agree to the necessity of this order, and although the Under-Secretary of State will not be able to claim that he has brought to women perhaps the more desirable state of "equal work brings equal pay," he can at least say that "equal work brings equal punishment."

8.4 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I would like to join my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) in welcoming this tidying-up legislation affecting both women and men in the Armed Forces; but there is one point which I think is a peculiar one, and perhaps the Under-Secretary of State can give me an answer on it.
In the Regimental Debts Act, which is the second Act amended by Part II of this order, the case of the insane is dealt with. It is clear that where the wife of a civilian happens to become insane, this order is effective, but I think an anomaly is likely to arise in the event of the husband also being in the Forces. Section 24 of the Regimental Debts Act, 1893, says that the preferential charges may be paid by the wife of the insane person or by any person who, subject to the prescribed regulations, appears to be a relative of or person undertaking the care of the insane or of his property. Those preferential charges are dealt with in Section 2 of that Act and the first of those preferential charges which have to be provided for by the Committee
of Adjustment is expenses of the last illness. Section 24 treats an insane person as if he had died on the date he became insane.
If it should so happen that the husband is in the Forces, it does seem a little hard on the woman in the Forces that she should have to provide preferential charges connected with the expenses of the last illness, which I imagine should have been provided free by the Army medical service. I feel it may be necessary to have an additional amendment to the Regimental Debts Act, 1893, in order to cover that point. I am also not at all sure that it may not apply to the amendment to the Finance Act, 1924. I think it is, in the main, cases of the insane which are affected, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to reassure us on this point.

Mr. M. Stewart: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I say that I think the simple answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that if the expenses of the type he has described, expenses of last illness, or indeed any other expenses, are of the kind which ought properly in the course of service to be met freely, then there would be no preferential charge to be paid.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Army and Air Force (Women's Service) (Adaptation of Enactments) Order, 1948, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — FOOD RATIONING (RETAILERS'LICENCES)

8.8 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 18th October, 1948, entitled the Food Rationing (General Provisions) Order, 1948 (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1948 (S.I.. 1948, No. 2319), a copy of which was delivered to the Votes and Proceedings Office on 19th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled".
This order amends the Food Rationing (General Provisions) Order by making, among other things, a certain insertion in Part II of that order which deals with the rationing of traders. The provision in the order against which we are praying and to which I would first call attention is this. It provides in Article I (b):
…No retailer of any rationed food shall knowingly permit any of the persons set out in the Schedule to this Order to exercise any control, direct or indirect, financial, managerial or otherwise, over the policy, management or conduct of the business.
If we turn to the Schedule to find the persons who are so prohibited we find first of all:
any person who was the holder of a licence
—I am now paraphrasing for the sake of comparative brevity. It covers:
 Any person who was the holder of a licence…or any retailer who was the holder of a ration document…and whose licence or ration document has been revoked, …as a result of his being convicted of an offence against any of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, or any Order made thereunder, in respect of any article of food.
It also covers offenders against certain statutes dealing with food. Again, it covers:
Any person who was a director or officer of any body corporate whose licence or ration document has been revoked…
Finally, it provides—and this is the last category of prohibited persons—
Any person having the control or management of any premises in respect of which an Order under Regulation 42C of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, has been made, at the time of the making of such Order.
As I have already stated, it is provided that:
No retailer of any rationed food shall knowlingly permit any person set out in the Schedule…to exercise any control, direct or indirect, financial, managerial or otherwise, over the policy, management or conduct of the business.

It seems to me a pretty tall order that persons falling within the scope of the Schedule who have been convicted of some offence, and in consequence have had their licences or ration documents revoked by the Ministry, should further be pursued by punishment in the form of being stopped from getting a job in a managerial capacity with a retailer of rationed food. We have here a scheduled class of untouchables created by this order. They are people who not only have been punished twice but thrice.
First, there is the conviction with the penalty of a fine or imprisonment which, quite appropriately, will have been imposed by the court; then there is the punishment by the Ministry in the revocation of their licences or ration documents; and third, the punishment of being precluded by the terms of this order from obtaining a job within the scope of the provision which I have read. That is repugnant to the British sense of justice. Whatever may be said about the general aspects of the matter, I draw attention —as I warned the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food that I would —to the particular case of those mentioned in the third paragraph of the Schedule. I will read that paragraph again:
Any person having the control or management of any premises in respect of which an Order under Regulation 42C of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, has been made. at the time of the making of such Order.
Regulation 42C of the Defence Regulations enables a chief officer of police to make an order closing undesirable premises. He must first be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe certain things. These include:
that persons are permitted to be on the premises between ten o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the morning for the purpose of eating or drinking or dancing or being entertained;
—and that they pay for that pleasure. He must also be satisfied that:

"(i) drunkenness or disorderly or indecent conduct…takes place on the premises, or
(ii) criminals or prostitutes … are to be found on the premises."

If he is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe those things, then he has power under Regulation 42C to make an order closing the premises. It is further provided in the Regulation that any person who is aggrieved by such an order


may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction and the court shall, if it is satisfied by the appellant that there is no reasonable cause to believe the matters which gave rise to the police suspicions, revoke the order, without prejudice to its previous operation. I think that hon. Members will have guessed already what I am driving at. Reverting to the third paragraph of the Schedule, it will be noted that what it says is:
…in respect of which an Order …has been made.
It does not say: "Where an order is in force."
The result of those words is that where someone, who has had control or management of premises which have been closed by order of a chief officer of police under Regulation 42C, has gone on appeal to the court of summary jurisdiction and has obtained revocation of that order and has been completely exonerated from all fault, he still will be under the disability imposed by paragraph 3. We have the astonishing position that a perfectly innocent man, declared to be so by the court of summary jurisdiction, will labour under a disability so long as this Schedule remains in force. I do not know whether in drafting this order the Ministry of Food intended to be so vindictive. No doubt the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us. It is intolerable that such an order should be allowed to continue in force for one day. That is the reason why I move to annul the order tonight.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Drayson: I beg to Second the Motion.
The hon. Baronet has explained his reasons for objecting to this order most fully. I should like to add a few remarks protesting against the fact that those who have already been punished by the courts and have had their licences revoked should be prevented from taking up further employment in a managerial capacity in work in which no doubt they are highly skilled. I regret the element of vindictiveness which appears to be introduced by this order. It seems to be on a par with the treatment of some miners—the new Socialist principle that one can be barred from any further employment in a particular industry for committing some offence. We on this side of

the House thoroughly detest any idea of that sort. I hope that the hon. Lady will see fit to look again at paragraph 3. If she is advised by the Solicitor-General that there is substance in the point made by my hon. Friend, I hope that she will agree to have that part of the order amended.

8.20 p.m.

Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth): I think this order is very confusing, and that it is by no means easy to understand clearly what is happening. I am not at all sure whether it rules out future employment only in a managerial capacity. The hon. Lady nods her head that it does, but I take the interpretation of the phrase—
financial, managerial or otherwise.
It seems to me that the words "or otherwise" might mean almost anything, and in regard to management, why do we find the words "or conduct"? What is meant by "or conduct"? If it is management, why not repeat the word
"management." It really is not easy to understand exactly what the punishment, is going to be, or who, in fact, will be penalised.
My hon. Friend who moved this Prayer drew the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the second schedule, which is terribly involved. I have gone to the trouble of reading Regulation 42C of the Defence (General) Regulations. It is a very long regulation, it is highly complicated and it seems to embrace all sorts of conditions which do not seem to have very much connection with the object which the Ministry are trying to achieve. For instance, I would invite the Solicitor-General to tell me exactly what is meant by the word "associates." What is an associate? Presumably, we are all associates of anybody whom we happen to meet occasionally, and so it seems to me that all kinds of unknown factors may be brought into this order.
With all respect to the mover of this Prayer, evidence of drunkenness submitted to the court is, I presume, the only evidence that need apply under Regulation 42C, which says:
(c) "that while persons are so present on the premises—
(i) drunkenness or"—
Presumably, therefore, drunkenness having taken place, there is no need for any other undesirable factors to enter


into it at all. I think this order is a typical example of the kind of order which the average Member of this House cannot possibly understand. What is to be obtained by it, and who are to be affected by it?
I would like to endorse what has already been said on one aspect of this order, and to point out that, if a man is punished by
a court of summary jurisdiction, he serves his punishment. Why follow him for ever afterwards with a kind of halter round his neck? He has been brought before a court, which has told him that he has done certain things which he should not have done and for which he is punished. He pays that punishment, but that is not the end under this order. So far as I can see, for the rest of his life he is liable to be penalised.
We all know of certain newspapers which drag out some unfortunate person's past, and while I do not favour that practice, I would point out that, under this order, the person who is penalised will not be able to get back into his profession, and even if he succeeds in getting back in the lowest degree, he will still be denied any opportunity of promotion, however efficient he may in fact become. For those reasons, I sincerely hope that the hon. Lady will sympathetically consider this Motion.

8.26 p.m

Mr. Maclay: It seems rather fantastic, at this stage of this Parliament, to make the remark about the price of liberty being eternal vigilance, but I think this is one of the occasions when one should make that remark. I recall it particularly as in recent weeks I have had occasion to make a general study of what has been happening in the sphere of local government. I was quite horrified, as I went through all the implications of all the Acts passed in this Parliament, to find how our liberties were being taken quietly away, how power was becoming more centralised in the Executive, and how all these things are going on for the most plausible of reasons. Some of these Acts went through this House unopposed.
I have vivid memories of one, in connection with which I found nobody to support me when I wanted to oppose it. [An HON. MEMBER:
"Related to this

order?"] I am coming to that. My theme is the gradual disappearance of the liberties of our country. I really believe that hon. Members opposite, if they studied this situation, would begin to wonder whether they are really alive to what is happening. It does seem quite fantastic that a man should be punished, not once or twice, but three times for an offence.
What is the legal punishment provided in this order? One is tempted to turn back to the early days of this Parliament when the original Act, under which this order is made, was before the House—the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. During the Second Reading Debate, I very well remember asking the Minister in charge of the Bill to what the word
"transitional" applied. I asked whether it was the transition from war to peace, and whether we could be satisfied that it did not apply to the transition from one system in this country to the system of Socialism. I received an assurance that the Bill meant exactly what it said, and I was told that I could dismiss the latter idea, because if Socialism was coming, it would come separately and on its own account. I wonder whether that is really true, because, if we examine the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947, we shall still fail to find anything under which this order could be justified.
I think that all hon. Members ought to watch very carefully indeed the use which is being made of these powers under the Supplies and Services Acts. It is all very well to say that these extreme powers are necessary, and that we must continue these Defence Regulations for a further period because the world is so unsettled, but if they are to be used for this kind of interference with the liberty of the subject, it is a very serious matter indeed.
I wonder whether the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have really considered the full implications of the wording of this order now before us. This wording goes a very long way, and there is one particular point on which I hope we shall receive a definite assurance. If one of these wretched people, who is debarred from acting in a managerial capacity under this order, turns over a new leaf and decides to join a co-opera-


tive society, what happens to him? Is he allowed to do so? What happens to him then? I think the hon. Lady would discover that, by paragraph 1 (b), that wretched individual would certainly not be able to use his vote in the co-operative society. Whether he would be allowed to join at all, I do not know. I think that is a very material point, because, if a person uses his vote as a co-operator, he exercises a direct or indirect control over the business of the co-operative society. I hope that point will be cleared up completely.
I could go on declaiming a magnificent Liberal speech on the withdrawal of the order. However, I feel that some of my hon. Friends who sit immediately below me will do it better than I can, but with no more conviction, although probably, with greater experience. I sincerely hope that they will carry on this argument because I am convinced that this order constitutes a very serious change in our attitude towards the freedom of the individual to make good even after committing an offence. A man who has done wrong and decides to go straight in the future is, by this order, debarred from participation in his chosen profession.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: I wish to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay). I regard any extension of this practice by the Ministry of Food, to hound people who have been convicted under Ministry regulations, to the extent of driving them from their ordinary means of livelihood to another, as indefensible. There may have been some excuse, or even reason, for this type of action in time of war; but here we have the Ministry of Food extending their powers under this procedure in time of peace. Let us think what would happen if these powers were applied in other spheres, with reference to other offences. If a collier is convicted for stealing coal, is it suggested that the Ministry of Fuel and Power should then consider whether, in future, he should be employed as a collier, or whether he should have to be a surface worker?
I will give the House an example of that because it shows to what a situation we shall come if we follow this path. I remember the particular instance of an old lady—I do not attempt to defend her

conduct—who had a small stall in a country market. She chose to sell rabbits, and apparently she overlooked the fact that she was not entitled to sell them without a licence. Eventually, owing no doubt to her own stupidity, she was deprived of her right to trade in that market. It occurred to me at that time —and, indeed, under this regulation presumably——

Mr. Harrison: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether this lady was deprived of her right to sell rabbits in the market without first being warned by the Ministry?

Mr. Bowen: She was warned, and she was deprived of her right of carrying on her trade in accordance with the regulations then existing. I make no complaint about that. But, to my mind, the whole process whereby a person may be deprived of his or her normal chosen means of livelihood—because that is what it is coming to—is thoroughly bad. We have here a list of offences, some of which may be highly technical. Many people in this country have been convicted of offences in connection with the points banking account where it has been admitted on all sides that the offences were merely of a technical nature. Sometimes they have a serious element, but very often it has been
elicited by the tribunal dealing with the matters that they were highly technical offences. Despite that fact, here we have the position where a person in that category may have to change his occupation, or be prepared to take a position in that occupation carrying no responsibility.

Mr. Bechervaise: Would it not be better if the hon. Gentleman read out the points made after paragraph 1 (b)?

Mr. Bowen: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to paragraph 1 (b), which says:
No retailer of any rationed food shall knowingly permit any of the persons set out in the schedule to this order, to exercise any control, direct or indirect, financial, managerial or otherwise, over the policy, management or conduct of the business.
I am not dealing with the position of the retailer, but with that of the person affected. That position was dealt with in the illustration given by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs. I agree


with him that, if that procedure is followed, a person who comes within these regulations could not become an ordinary member of a co-operative society, because, if he did, he would then be in a position to exercise control, direct or indirect, over a retail business. That just shows where regulations of this kind lead us.
I take strong exception to this further attempt on the part of the Ministry of Food to adopt a system alien to criminal proceedings in this country. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to give me illustrations of offences in any other category—other than food offences and offences of that type—where this form of punishment or this procedure is adopted. I think that, instead of extending the scope in this sphere, we should now be doing all we can to limit it with a view to doing away with it entirely.

8.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): The hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), who moved the Prayer against this order, and his supporters are, I think, not quite clear in their own minds why this order had to be made in the first place. It is, of course, an amendment of the Food Rationing (General Provisions) Order. I want, quite briefly, to explain to the House the changes that have taken place in the distribution of food during the last 18 months. We now have to differentiate between those traders who deal in licensed foodstuffs and those who deal in what might be regarded as permit foodstuffs.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that, during the last 18 months, we have de-licensed greengrocers, fishmongers and grocers. The result is that we have now released something like 425,000 licencees during the last 18 months. As a result of that, we had to amend the original Food (Licensing of Retailers) Order. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will remember that, in the first place, he was going to pray against the amendment to the Retailers Order, but he has changed his mind tonight, and I can quite understand why he has done so.

Sir J. Mellor: The Prayer against that order might come later on.

Dr. Summerskill: And the reply might be more or less the same. The hon. Member must realise, of course—and I am sure he does—that the amendment to the General Provisions Order against which he is praying tonight is consequential on the Food (Licensing of Retailers) Order, because whereas the Retailers Order relates to those traders who are dealing with licensed foods, this Food Rationing (General Provisions) Order deals with those traders who now receive a permit for food which they are allowed to sell. In order to clear up the position, it was necessary, therefore, to make this amendment to the General Provisions Order.
Every hon. Member opposite has overlooked the most important point. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield condemned the policy; I think he used words to the effect that we were filching the liberties of the people. Does he realise that this is a continuation of the policy which was established in 1943 under the Coalition Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "In wartime."] If hon. Gentlemen think that it is right that traders in rationed food should be penalised in wartime, surely in these days of continuing scarcity these traders should be penalised in the same way if they commit offences.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I interrupt the hon. Lady merely to clarify something which she has already said. Does she say that this new Article 2A existed before?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: What was it called then?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. and learned Gentleman has the main Retailers Order which I have just been talking about, he will notice the third schedule. This is an Amendment. The point is that this is a continuation of the policy which we have pursued since 1943. It has been necessary, of course, to include in the Amendment to the General Provisions Order this schedule which has been criticised tonight, in order that people who are now dealing with what we might call permit foods, are treated in the same way as those who deal with licensed foods.
Now may I come to the grievances? We have been asked why it is necessary further to penalise these men, and why,


having revoked their licences, we should prohibit them from serving in a managerial capacity in another food concern. Surely the House must realise that before these men have their licences revoked we examine very carefully the charges made against them. Finally, my right hon. Friend makes a decision. In every case there is evidence that these men have been guilty of offences which make them quite unfitted to be a suitable link in the chain of distribution. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to be patient. It would make nonsense of our revocation procedure if, having revoked their licences, we allowed them to go back into another food concern where they would have control, where they could direct policy, and where there would be the risk that they might continue in the same way as before.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sure the hon. Lady is not attempting to mislead the House. She says "in a managerial capacity," but when one looks at the explanatory note on page 3 it says:
over the policy, management, or conduct of his business.
Is it not rather narrowing the question to say that a man or a woman who is serving at a stall or a kiosk is acting single-handed in a managerial capacity? Surely, this affects an individual employee in a stall or kiosk who is merely carrying out the orders of other people. Is such an individual, by the hon. Lady's ruling, included in this bar?

Dr. Summerskill: If the individual is serving in a subordinate capacity, then he is allowed to take a job, but if he should decide to buy a kiosk after he has had his licence revoked, that would not be allowed, of course.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest and Christchurch) rose——

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry I cannot give way again. I will deal with the question of the subordinate job in a moment. I would like the House also to remember that not only may a man try to get a job as a manager of a food concern, but it is quite common for people to put up what might be regarded as a "stooge." They may, when their licence has been revoked, transfer their business to another man, while the offender is behind the scenes and operating the busi-

ness the whole time. I think hon. Members have frequently come across cases where that has been proved. We feel the time has come to stop that kind of practice.
It has been suggested that such people are being punished twice. I want the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) to appreciate that there could be a subordinate in a stall or kiosk. Whoever is running it might employ somebody to serve there during a certain number of hours. This person whose licence has been revoked can, if he wishes, serve in that capacity.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I make my point again? I am saying that under this order as it stands, as I read it—I hope I may be corrected—the individual who, by what to most people would appear to be a peccadillo, may be in trouble on this issue, may wish to seek employment. He seeks the employment of serving in a kiosk under a perfectly honest management who may control or own various stalls or kiosks. Under this order he will be debarred from so doing. Though the management is perfectly honest, he is not allowed to accept a subordinate position.

Dr. Summerskill: I have already told the hon. Member twice that the person can accept that position. I am saying that he can accept a subordinate position. If a man is running a kiosk and selling bread or meat or something like that, the offender who has had his licence revoked can be employed as a subordinate, but he cannot act as a manager and he cannot control that kiosk.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The order does not say so.

Dr. Summerskill: Further, after the offender has had his licence revoked, he is given five weeks in which to sell his business. If he feels that there is some hardship and that five weeks is not long enough, he can appeal to the Department, and we are prepared to lengthen the period. He can then, if he wishes, take subordinate employment.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) said that he could not think of anybody who was treated so harshly, and asked if I could suggest an analogous position. Certainly. The legal profession, I believe, strikes solicitors off the roll if they abscond with their clients'


money. This is done in order to protect the public, and I want to emphasise that our object is to protect the public. Our primary object is not to punish the owner of the kiosk or shop, but to protect the public. Of course, it happens that a solicitor who is struck of the roll, suffers. In my own profession if a doctor is guilty of infamous professional conduct, he is struck off the register—not primarily to punish him but to prevent him from practising.
Another case which I thought of while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, going lower down the scale, is that of the garage proprietor who relies in some measure on driving his cars in order to run his business. He has his licence revoked, perhaps for life. He suffers, but that licence was revoked to protect the public. We feel strongly that we are the custodians of the people's food, and that it is for us to protect the people from those who have often proved to be rogues.
The hon. Member for Cardigan has been a long time in discovering Regulation 42C. The first order was made in 1943, and I know he has been in the House since then. So far as I know there has been no complaint at all about the operation of paragraph 3 of the Schedule to this order, but on reading it I agree that it seems a little unfair because it appears that a man in charge of a catering establishment which is the resort of prostitutes, will be penalised because he was there when the order, to close the establishment was made, although that order was afterwards revoked. Paragraph 30 (1) of the Food Rationing (General Provisions) Order says:
The provisions of the Food Rationing Orders, 1948, are subject to any directions which may at any time be given by or on behalf of the Minister, and to any licence or authorisation which may be granted by or on behalf of the Minister under the said Orders or under any of them.
The man may appeal to the Minister, who has full power to reinstate in a case of that kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman is very meticulous in these matters. It seems that he and I have lived through this moment before, when we discussed the Seizure of Food Order. I agree that paragraph 3 could and should be redrafted. It has been in operation for five years, and nobody on the opposite side of

the House has objected, but I am prepared to redraft it in these words:
Any person who, at the time of the making of the Order under Regulation 42C of the Defence (General) Regulations in respect of any premises, had the control or management of such premises; provided that such Order shall not thereafter have been revoked under paragraph (2) of the said regulation.
I think that would remove a real grievance, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to allow me to amend the order in that way.

Mr. Maclay: Can the hon. Lady give me assurance on the co-operative point? It may seem ridiculous, but I think the wording means that the man cannot be a member of the Co-operative Society. Is she satisfied that that is not so?

Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Member that we treat co-operative societies—[HON. MEMBERS
"Especially well—no, in precisely the same manner as other food establishments. The man who has had his licence revoked could take a subordinate position in a co-operative society, but not a managerial position.

Mr. Maclay: But could he become a member of the co-operative society, because a member exercises control over the operations of the society?

Dr. Summerskill: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that control, in that case, is very remote.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Far be it from me to express an opinion upon the difficult question, whether a member of a co-operative society has remote or any control over the operations of that society. But I must confess that I am puzzled by what the hon. Lady has said in defence of this order. First, she made, or attempted to make, in her customary fashion, a strong speech in its defence; but then, having done her utmost in that respect, she came to the conclusion—and I think the proper conclusion —that part of this order is now, whatever it may have been in the past, quite indefensible; and she asked whether we would consider some amendment to it. Of course, we cannot amend this order now. Does she mean that she accepts this Prayer, or does she wish, by keeping this order in force, to keep in force for some time the extraordinary situation


that arises under Regulation 42C. I am not at all clear from what she said whether she is opposing this Prayer or acceding to it. She left me in complete doubt about that.

Dr. Summerskill: I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to allow me to redraft that part, but I do not want the order to be annulled. That is quite in order. It is quite possible. We should have this order. We want the definition laid down in it to continue. I think the hon. Gentleman knows me fairly well, and knows that if I give an undertaking that that part of the Schedule will be redrafted, there will be no need, of course, for the order to be annulled.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Lady has asked me if I would allow her to amend this order. I wish I were in the position to say whether or not she should amend it; but I do not, and we on this side of the House do not control these things. She must come down on one side of the fence or the other. She admits, as she has to admit, that part of this order is bad. We say, "Take it away and bring in a new order. Take it away." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] She says it is bad. Let it be annulled, and let her bring in a new one tomorrow, without any delay at all, without any possible chance of anyone's committing an offence under Regulation 42C and escaping the close net of the Ministry of Food. She has asked us for leave to amend the order but that is not recognising the position that exists in this country at the present time. I would say to her, in all sincerity, that the proper course would be to let this Prayer succeed tonight, and to bring in a fresh order with the amendment tomorrow.

Mr. Harrison: Would that be satisfactory?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It might be satisfactory so far as that particular point is concerned, but there are other points which merit the consideration of this House. The first point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is the interesting discrepancy between the Explanatory Memorandum and the hon. Lady's speech in support of this order. If explanatory memoranda are to serve any useful purpose they should explain the purpose of the order, and its effect. Really, the hon. Lady's

speech, eloquent as it was, did not cover or incorporate a single point of the Explanatory Memorandum, which is quite short. I must say that I join with my hon. Friend who moved this Prayer in disliking thoroughly this form of order, and I will put my reasons quite shortly.
First of all, we have to have someone who is prosecuted and convicted, it may be on indictment before a High Court judge, for an offence under the Defence Regulations, or for an offence against the Larceny Act, or against the law of food control. As a condition precedent to any action under this order, we have to have a trial and conviction. It may be at the Old Bailey; it may be at the Assizes. The judge, on the accused being found guilty, will naturally want to know, and usually takes every possible step to find out, all the relevant circumstances before determining what penalty should be imposed. The penalty under these Acts need not be a small one. That having taken place, what is the next step? The case then goes to the Ministry of Food to determine whether or not the man's licence should be revoked— —the licence or ration document should be revoked or the points banking account should be closed. That, of course, is an Executive act, and there may be—I do not challenge this—cases where it is necessary in the public interest that, consequent upon the conviction, that step should be taken by the Ministry of Food. I do not challenge that in the least, but I hope that in all cases where that may ensue, that possible consequence will be brought to the attention of the tribunal before whom the person has been found guilty.
It does not stop with revocation because, these two conditions having been satisfied under this Measure, one finds it becomes an offence not for the convicted person to seek employment in a managerial capacity in the business of a retailer of rationed foods; it does not become an offence for him to try to get employment of the same character as that in respect of which he was convicted; but it becomes an offence for someone who has not been convicted at all, who is perfectly innocent, knowingly to employ him. May I put this position; we may get a man who is convicted of an offence under the Larceny Act, and the


court before whom he appears, having regard to all the circumstances, think that the right course is to bind him over on probation. The Ministry of Food may say, in spite of that, "We do not think he can go on holding a licence; the licence must be revoked." That may be a perfectly proper course to take; but then that man goes to seek employment with some other retailer, that may be miles away, and maybe he tells him a hard luck story. If that retailer takes him on he commits a criminal offence.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice) indicated dissent.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Solicitor-General shakes his head, but one sees in paragraph (1) (b)that any retailer of any rationed food who employs that man, although the court which has gone fully into the circumstances thinks that the proper sentence upon him for the crime of which he has been found guilty is to bind him over—any retailer who employs that man, with the knowledge of that fact, commits a criminal offence in respect of which a serious penalty may be imposed upon him. I feel that that is wrong in these days. After all, the war has now been over for three years. The hon. Lady said that there was some similar provision in the general order. She, I am sure, is much more familiar with the general order than I am. At the moment, I cannot put my finger on it——

Dr. Summerskill: The 1943 Local Distribution Order.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. She referred. us to the wrong order.

Dr. Summerskill: When I said the main order I was thinking of the order from which we derive these powers which is the 1943 Local Distribution Order.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. She did lead me astray for one moment—but only for one moment. However, I quite understand her difficulty, with this mass of orders, in referring to the correct order in answer to a question, and I am grateful to her now for telling me which is the correct order. I am sorry that I have had no opportunity of looking at that order, but

the situation, surely, has changed. This order is creating a new offence, otherwise the words in Paragraph 1 (b)are unnecessary. If it is already an offence knowingly to employ someone who has been convicted of an offence in relation to food under the Larceny Act then this new order is entirely unnecessary.

Dr. Summerskill: I thought I had explained that to the hon. and learned Gentleman. During the last 18 months we have changed our method of distribution. As I explained in my preamble, we have licensed food and permit food. It was necessary, therefore, to amend the Retailers' Order and to amend the General Provisions Order; that is why it has had to be mentioned twice.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Both orders may be amended, but it is unnecessary to repeat part of the provisions in either a statute or a regulation creating a criminal offence. If the words in the original order are similar to the words set out in paragraph 2 (a)here, then there was no need to repeat them. I assume that they are not the same words, but I have not had an opportunity of checking them. If the hon. Lady intends to take this order back, I do ask her to look at this again, because surely it is putting a very heavy onus on an employer. The second and the greater objection I have to this is the principle—the principle of black-listing certain people arbitrarily, without any trial or any inquiry as to whether it is right to black-list them.

Mr. Tiffany: No.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Oh, yes, indeed. The hon. Member must follow: convicted at an assize court after full inquiry, sentenced for the offence, and then in the exercise of the discretion of the Ministry the licence revoked; but then, following upon that, black-listed because he cannot be employed by anyone in a retailer's business who knows of the circumstances.

Mr. Tiffany: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman apply his argument in this direction? On his argument that it is wrong to punish on two occasions, if the manager of a business is convicted of theft and sentenced by the court is it wrong for the employer to dismiss that man—on the ground that he should not be punished a second time?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That, of course, shows the woeful confusion of thought in the hon. Gentleman's mind. [Laughter.] —The hon. Member may laugh, but that man who is dismissed and convicted can go and find other employment in a similar business in another town without anyone being guilty of a criminal offence. Under this order the hon. Gentleman will realise that the individual who is convicted of an offence and who loses his licence cannot be employed managerially, financially or otherwise—whatever
"or otherwise" means—in any other retailer's business in any other part of the country where that retailer knows that that man has been convicted.

Mr. Tiffany: Surely, the original argument, as adduced earlier and continued, was that it was wrong to punish a second time. But that happens on practically every occasion.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am afraid the hon. Member really is showing himself to be incapable of either following the argument or understanding the order. If when he is alone tonight he reads the order through to himself several times he will see, I am sure, that what I am saying about the order is right. If the hon. Lady is going to take away this order, as I think she must in view of what she has said, I ask her to look at this part again. Is it really necessary at this time, in addition to the power of revocation? It is all very well for her to say that under Regulation 30 of the General Regulations there is power to grant a licence. Does that mean that the Ministry of Food will licence particular employers to employ particular persons who have been convicted? If so, a very wide field is opened up.
In one part of her speech I did not follow the hon. Lady very clearly. It is all very well for the Ministry to talk about
"custodians for the people" when speaking of Regulation 42c, but under that regulation the offence is drunkenness on the premises, for which an order is made by the chief constable. That, surely, has very little to do with the Ministry of Food?

Dr. Summerskill: Well, prostitutes do eat.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was not denying that elementary principle and I assume that, even if an order is made

under the regulation, they still have to eat somewhere and are still entitled to get rations from the Ministry of Food without any revocation of a licence?
Surely, there is a broad distinction between offences under the Defence Regulations other than this one, the Larceny Act, the Sale of Food Act and the Food and Drugs Act, and an offence under Regulation 42. I am at a loss to see why Regulation 42C is brought into the picture at all. If someone has an order made in respect of his premises under that regulation, it seems somewhat illogical that he should not be employed in the business of a retailer in some other part of the country because, presumably, the man who has been convicted under that order had, or may have had, nothing to do with the retailing of food.
The hon. Lady did not deal with one further point on which I wish we could have an answer. In answer to a question she tried to define what was meant by "employment in a subordinate capacity"—financial, managerial or otherwise. What about the man who is employed in an intermediate capacity? Is it an offence so to employ somebody who has been convicted?

Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give me an illustration?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Let us take the manager of a shop and suppose that under him are two or three individuals who are in charge of larger numbers of individuals. Are the two or three directly under him; do they come within this definition or not?

Dr. Summerskill: They are in a subordinate capacity.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The manager may be in a subordinate capacity to the managing director of the company. The hon. Lady must go a little further than that.
Supposing that in a shop with two or three branches in the same building, each selling different articles, there is one manager and one person in charge of each branch of the shop, and under each person in charge of a bit of the shop there are several assistants. What is the position of the person in charge of each bit of the shop—managerial or subordinate?

Dr.Summerskill: Managerial.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There ought not to be this vagueness about the interpretation of this order which, on the face of it, creates a criminal offence. The hon. Lady did her best to defend an order that is really not at all easy to defend. Even she, who has defended so many bad orders in her time, has failed, as she admits, to defend one part of it. In those circumstances, I hope she will say that this order will be withdrawn and a new one brought in tomorrow, one to which no objection can be taken, otherwise we can only do our best to assist her by voting against it.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I submit that we are in some confusion. The Minister in charge of the order and resisting the Prayer has already said she is not prepared to stand by the drafting of the schedule on which the order is made and has gone so far as to submit an alternative—which I think I am right in saying she hoped would appeal to those supporting the Prayer for the annulment of the order. In view of that and the fact that it is quite impossible for the House to amend an order, or any part of it, may I ask your Ruling Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Are we debating an order which is in existence, or a proposal for the removal of the order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Clearly the House is debating an order in existence. I understand that the hon. Lady undertakes to bring in a fresh order and contemporaneously to revoke the existing order. It is a matter for the House and for the hon. Member in whose name the Motion stands, but in the circumstances he may wish to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay): Would not the sensible thing be for the Minister to withdraw the order which she has promised to amend now? Then, when it is withdrawn, we can go on to other business and she will get the new order all right. It seems to me that the Minister is holding up this matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hardly think that is a point of Order. It seems to be a matter of argument addressed to the Minister on the course she does, or does not, desire to take.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The hon. Lady's argument is quite interesting. First she justified the continuation of an order made in 1943, a war order. Part of this order today, on her own admission, does not apply to existing conditions. She is not pleased with the last part of it. Then she puts forwards the defence, I think the correct and very right defence, that a part of the severe punishment, the revocation of the licence, is imposed for the protection of the public. I fully agree that it is necessary for the protection of the public.
I hope that when she considers the order she will further consider the provision that the person must first be prosecuted and convicted and then the licence revoked. Note what happens. He is prosecuted and convicted before the court, but the licence is revoked by the Minister. In the instance she gave of the person driving a car under the influence of drink, whose licence may be revoked because of the danger he may inflict on the public, that licence is revoked by the court as part of the judgment of the court which inquires into the offence. Where guilt is established, all the facts should be brought to the court and that court should have the power to revoke the licence, if it is revoked.

Mr. David Jones: The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) will admit that in the past when a man has been convicted, his employer has, dismissed him next day.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: If I understand the hon. Member aright, he complains about that as being unjust. If he does that, I agree with him, because that action is taken by a body which has never heard the evidence.

Mr. Attewell: How does it affect the doctor, or the solicitor?

Mr. Hopkin Morris: That, again, is not done by the court, but by a professional body, a professional trade union acting on their own initiative. That is completely outside the scope of the administration of justice. We are arguing that an executive Department should not act judicially but that the court should have complete power of judicial action as the body which hears


the evidence and tries the offender. I am not objecting to the revocation of the licence, but that a Department which does not hear the evidence and before whom the offender himself is not heard, should revoke the licence. I hope the hon. Lady will look at the order again and bring the whole matter into line and transfer this power to the jurisdiction of the court.

Colonel Dower: What a hope.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I hope the hon. Lady has some sense of the position of justice in this country, and I hope the Government have too. I do not think the position is as hopeless as the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) says. If she is prepared to take back the order why not take it back now? There were reasons for such orders during war-time. Because of the exigencies of war, there was a good deal of had legislation, which cannot be justified in peace-time. It is a bad thing to come into this House in peacetime to justify legislation because it was inevitable in war-time. If the hon. Lady is going to look again at the order she should look at it in the conditions of peace-time and the proper administration of justice, leaving the whole decision to the court that tries the defendant.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement about supplies being more or less the same which interested me. There has been a remarkable similarity about her replies. I noticed, as the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) said just now, that one of her chief delights was to turn on the party on these Benches and tell them that the National Government had to do the same thing in time of war When she says that, the Prime Minister, on those rare occasions when he comes here, or the Leader of the House or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster do not look at her too favourably, because she is back-biting them in that remark.
Her speech tonight was on the normal level, but she has for the first time of which I am aware, admitted that one of her orders contains a real blunder. I appreciate the fact that for the first time the hon. Lady has admitted that something is wrong. There is always hope for the sinner who goes on sinning year after year, when once he or she begins to per-

ceive mistakes. I congratulate the hon. Lady on this sign of humility and real knowledge.
Perhaps the Solicitor-General can explain what is the use of this House passing this order tonight with the knowledge that it has in it a bad mistake which must be amended at once. Any honest Government would not allow it to run for a single day after the Parliamentary Secretary's admission. If the Government are going to allow it to run, I say more shame to them, although I would be more surprised if they took the honest course. Are we going to pass this order tonight in the knowledge that it must be withdrawn in a few days? Have we to divide on this order and go through all the paraphernalia knowing that the order may he withdrawn?
It should also be withdrawn because of one or two points which have emerged in this Debate. I do not think that a lot of Members on the other side of the House quite realise yet that under this order, if a man is turned out and his licence taken away under one of these orders, and if by chance he is employed by one of the great co-operative societies, it is liable to get into trouble. It is my duty, being one of those ordinary Members closely connected with every concern in his division, to look after the great co-operative movement, as well private interests. [Laughter.] I notice. when I say that, that one or two of these remote high-ups whom I see scattered on the Benches below the Gangway, and who are far removed from the common people of this country, naturally laugh and jeer. But that is not the only reason why this order should be withdrawn. I say that three years after the war we really ought not to have this sort of perpetual punishment, or at least punishment until the orders are withdrawn.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that, in the cases of a great many thousands of people who had to have licences, the whole of the licensing system has been taken away. How do we know that the Government may not stop the whole licensing system for many of these trades during the next few months. Only a few days before bread rationing was taken away, we were told that it was wicked to suggest that it should be ended. We suggest that few of these licences are necessary today. I


say quite frankly that, so far as this matter is concerned, this method of punishment which prevents a man who loses his licence from going back into his trade is wrong.
I end by appealing to the hon. Lady to look round at her own benches when they are full. Sometimes very much graver offences are committed and one can see that many high-ups in the Government today get off after a certain amount of time. How am I to answer a question from a constituent who loses a licence, and is deprived of his livelihood for many years and whose wife and family may be in poverty in consequence, when he says, "How does my position compare with the very much worse things in the eyes of many of us, that happened with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer?"

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I wish to say only a few words after the graceful speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I have never seen him more mobile or more graceful, and I think that the whole House is grateful to him for the way in which he put his points. I ask the hon. Lady whether she would not be better advised to withdraw this order. I do not like the idea of it going out from this House that Ministers can make mistakes over this and that and then come down to this House and say, "We know we have done wrong, but we are not going to withdraw it. We know that we can do it in some other way. We think we have another loophole. We admit the mistake and that we have been wrong for some time, but we can do it in such a way as to escape blame."
I compare the attitude and position of the Minister with the attitude and position in which a small trader often finds himself or herself under the munificent regulations under which they have to operate at the present time. They do not have a second chance, they cannot withdraw a mistake. They are stigmatised in the public Press if some little case has gone through the courts. It does them an immense amount of damage. It affects their families and it may affect their livelihood for years to come. I do not think that it is right for a Minister to say, "I know there is a

mistake here. We can redraft the order. This is the sort of thing we should like to say. We ask those who are opposing this order to accept our redraft and to give a second look at it." Why should a Minister be given a second chance when the ordinary trader is not? I have no personal bias in this matter, but I do not think it is good for any Ministry that this sort of thing should happen.
My second reason for wishing the order to be withdrawn is because of what has been said about the extraordinary switch-over in the application of justice in this country. The employer is made responsible for the whole of the past record of a man or woman whom he wishes to employ. What are we coming to under these conditions? Is the identity card to become a permanency under this order? Is the record of a man who has gone through the courts, or who has a black mark against him from the Ministry of Food under Regulation 42C. to be stamped on his identity card? Is the employer in any food retail establishment to say, "Ach, yes, it is Boot,'" or "Ach, it is not 'goot'"? We are getting very near to that state of affairs. We must all carry our licences and show our past records before we can be given licences from the Ministry of Food to be employed by a private retailer——

Mr. Sargood: The hon. Gentleman just made a point with regard to a person who has been convicted and has a record. Is it not a fact that many hundreds of employers in this country require that a man must disclose on his application form for employment whether he has had a conviction for any form of offence?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think that that question has very much to do with the subject we are discussing. Let me give an example. A retailer applies to the Ministry of Labour, through the employment exchange, for the services of some individual, man or woman, to help in a retail trade connected with licensed foods. Will he get the criminal record of the man who is offered to him through the employment exchange? Of course, he will not. Yet, under this order, he is responsible for employing that man or woman if that person has been previously convicted. I think the Minister will agree that the order as drafted makes the employer responsible for employing


an individual if a conviction has been recorded against that individual.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman will see the word,
"knowingly." The order says:
No retailer of any rationed food shall knowingly permit…
In the case he is quoting, the man would not know.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: If one of the people came along from the Ministry of Food and inquired into a case of knowingly or unknowingly defrauding the people and making mistakes about licences, and if he applied the same sort of value to the word "knowingly," when used in this respect, nobody would have a dog's chance of standing up against this order. The word
"knowingly "in these circumstances means very little indeed.
It is a great pity that the Minister does not withdraw this order. That would be a graceful act. We are not embittered about this business, but it would be very much better to deal with it in that way. She should not say in the same breath, "I know that a mistake has been made—a drafting error has been made—and that the mistake has been found out. We want to put it right and here is the way in which we want to do it." All the arguments adduced from this side of the House have shown points which clearly have not been fully considered. Answers to those points have not been fully and properly given. If there were any answers, we have had the learned Solicitor-General present on the Front Bench, and those answers could have been provided. They have not been provided, and I think that is because the points that have been made are unanswerable. I beg the Government to withdraw the order and leave the whole field clear for the introduction of a new draft.

9.35 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think we have been rather side-tracked in the last half-hour. The hon. Lady has repented about paragraph 3 of the Schedule and has said that where the order has been revoked the penalties under it will not be fulfilled. As I understood her, that is the sole concession that she is willing to give. She has made no attempt to answer the point directed to her. If she looks at paragraph 1 (b) she will see that

in perfectly open employment, without any question of conviction, of legal proceedings or an appeal or anything else, she will still be entitled to say that the licence or ration document can be revoked, but, once she has done that, the full implication of this order comes into force. There is no question about somebody who may have been convicted of drunkenness or larceny, but only that, for some reason or other, they have incurred the displeasure of the Minister of Food. If the hon. Lady looks at the main order, she will see, in Article 24 (c), that she has the power of cancelling the registration of a person, or the nomination of an establishment, and, under Subsection 2.
Any person to whom any such instructions are given under this Order shall comply with such instructions.
While, in fact, the hon. Lady has come here and said that she may have made a mistake, under Regulation 42C, she will reserve to herself the very right, which we have challenged, that her Ministry, without reference to anybody, may make somebody liable under this order and have the means of depriving them of future employment in this industry.
The hon. Lady has also been very careful not to state on any occasion what the words "or otherwise" mean. My hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench tried to obtain from her a definition of the word "managerial," but he was unsuccessful, and even he did not try to find out what the words "or otherwise" mean. The hon. Lady has not been forthcoming in trying to elucidate that matter. As the order now stands, anybody in the categories which she has enumerated can be debarred from employment, not by his having committed an offence, but simply because the Ministry have revoked his licence; and, not only that—he may find that, under Section 30 of the main Act, these words "or otherwise" will still debar him.
I suggest that, when the hon. Lady has admitted a small fault, it would be much more honourable to take back the whole order, under which she is trying to exercise powers for which there is no justification, and for which she has produced no reason whatever. She should, in honour, take the order back and try to produce something which will meet her


requirements, which we on this side of the House admit, without imposing an intolerable burden on working people. The hon. Lady has said that nobody will suffer, but how can she say that when, in fact, she still retains the power to debar anybody from continued employment in any of the categories which come under this order. I hope she will think again, not because we quarrel with what she is trying to do, but because what she would achieve under this order will be the last thing which she wants to do.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Royle: During the last half hour, the Debate has centred on a question of wording and has become a quibble on legal matters, and, as a result, we have got completely away from the fundamentals of this order. I want to bring the House back to what the amendment of this order really means. The order is designed to provide protection, not only for o the population, but, I suggest, for the legitimate trader who is playing the game in the course of his rationing activities. I suggest that hon. Members opposite are tonight very definitely defending the criminal class.

The Ministry of Food never revoke a licence unless there is very strong justification for doing so. Cases are heard in the law courts, or in the higher court, and only after many prosecutions, in most cases, are licences revoked. That proves conclusively that a serious offence has been committed. I suggest that it is wrong for any Member of this House to place such individuals in a position to repeat the offence in the same town or in another part of the country. As a trader myself, I would object to people who were constantly kicking over the traces in important matters of this kind continuing in business to the detriment of honest traders. I sincerely hope that the Minister and my hon. Friends will resist the Prayer to the utmost.

Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 18th October, 1948, entitled the Food Rationing (General Provisions) Order, 1948 (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1948 (S.1., 1948, No. 2319), a copy of which was delivered to the Votes and Proceedings Office on 19th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 242.

Division No. 3.]
AYES
[9.42 p.m.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Spearman, A. C. M


Bennett, Sir P.
Langford-Holt, J.
Spence, H. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Lipson. D. L.
Studholme, H. G.


Bossom, A. C
Low, A. R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Bowers, R.
Maclay, Hog. J. S
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Bower, N.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Butcher, H. W
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Wadsworth, G.


Carson, E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Channon, H.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Conant, Maj R. J. E
Morrs, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dower, Col. A V. G. (Penrith)
Odey, G. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Drewe, C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
York, C.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Rayner, Brig. R.



Gage, C.
Sanderson, Sir F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Shephard, S. (Newark)
Sir John Mellor and Mr. Drayson


Jennings, R.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)





NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Blackburn, A. R.
Coldrick, W.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Boardman, H.
Collick, P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Collindridge, F.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Collins, V.J


Alpaca, J. H.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Cook, T. F.


Attewell, H. C.
Bramall, E. A.
Corlett, Dr. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Brook, O. (Halifax)
Cove, W. G.


Ayles, W. H
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Cullen. Mrs. A


Bacon, Miss A
Bruce, Maj. D. W T
Daggar, G.


Baird, J.
Burden, T. W.
Daines, P


Balfour, A.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Barstow, P. G
Callaghan, James
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Barton, C.
Castle, Mrs B. A
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Battley, J. R.
Champion, A. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Bechervaise, A. E
Chetwynd, G. R
Deer, G.


Benson, G.
Cobb, F. A.
Diamond, J.


Berry, H.
Cocks, F. S.
Dobbie, W.




Dodds, N. N
Lang, G.
Royle, C


Donovan, T.
Lavers, S.
Sargood, R


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Scollan, T.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Scott-Elliot, W


Dumpleton, C. W
Leslie, J. R.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dye, S.
Levy, B. W.
Sharp, Granville


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shurmer, P.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lynn, A. W
Simmons, C. J.


Ewart, R.
McAdam, W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Fairhurst, F.
McAllister, G.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Farthing, W. J.
McEntee, V. La T
Skinnard, F. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Mack, J. D.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Follick, M.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Forman, J. C.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F
Steele, T.


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T N
Mallalieu, J. P W. (Huddersfield)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Mann, Mrs. J.
Swingler, S.


Gibbins, J
Medland, H. M
Sylvester, G O.


Gibson, C. W
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Gilzean, A.
Middleton, Mrs L
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Grenfell, D. R.
Mitchison, G. R
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Grierson, E.
Moody, A. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Glayton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Thurtle, Ernest


Gunter, R. J.
Morley, R.
Tiffany, S.


Guy, W. H.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Timmons, J.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Titterington, M. F.


Hale, Leslie
Mort, D. L.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Moyle, A
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Hardy, E. A.
Nally, W.
Viant, S. P.


Hastings, Dr, Somerville
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Walker, G. H.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E)


Herbison, Miss M.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Warbey, W. N.


Hobson, C. R.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F E. (Brentford)
Watkins, T. E


Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.
Watson, W. M


Horabin, T. L
Orbach, M.
Weitzman, D.


Hoy, J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hubbard, T.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Parkin, B. T.
West, D. G.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pearson, A.
Wigg, George


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Peart, T. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Perrins, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W T
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Danner, B.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Jay, D. P. T.
Pursey, Comdr. H
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Randall, H. E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Ranger, J.
Willis, E.


Jenkins, R. H.
Rankin, J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J H


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rhodes, H.
Woods, G. S


Keenan, W.
Richards, R.
Yates, V. F


Kenyon, C
Ridealgh, Mrs. M



Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robens, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Kinghorn, Sqn.Ldr. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Mr. Hannan and Mr. George Wallace


Kinley, J
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLOTHES RATIONING

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: We move now from food to clothes, both of them subjects that have a great deal of interest for the nation. The President of the Board of Trade said, two or three weeks ago, that he intended to make a bonfire of a lot of controls, but it was

not a very big bonfire. If only he had thrown in clothes rationing, and all the hundreds of millions of coupons, he would have had a blaze worthy of Guy Fawkes night. The right hon. Gentleman had already prepared the way, in September, by taking off coupons furnishing fabrics, boots and shoes, gloves, and one or two other hosiery articles. Many people expected that he would abolish clothes rationing when he made his announcement about the bonfire. The structure of the clothes rationing scheme


still remains, however, despite the representations by the clothing and drapery trades.
I saw in the Press the other day that the right lion. Gentleman was about to conduct a quiz among employees at the Board of Trade to find out, I suppose, how many coupons they had left, and so on. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is in a real difficulty. During the war he could estimate what the production of clothing was, and he knew it could all be absorbed. Today, however, although he can still estimate what the production will be, he is not in a position to know what the consumer demand is or what the sales are likely to be. I suppose that that is really why he is having this quiz. I was under the impression, from what I saw in the paper recently, that Gallup Polls and quizzes were no longer reliable, and I do hope that the Minister will attach far more importance to the representations made by the trade than he will to the result of his quiz.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) raised this matter of clothes rationing in a Question a few days ago, the Minister replied that he would end clothes rationing as soon as supplies were sufficient to meet export demands and to leave a reasonable balance for home requirements. I think those were the words he used. That is fair enough. I am not going to argue about that at all. My contention is that we have reached that point, and that the home supplies of almost every article of clothing are now sufficient for the demand, and that no hardship would be suffered by any of the public if clothes rationing were abolished. Of course, I want to substantiate that argument; and I can do it only by producing figures from the Monthly Digest of Statistics.
Let us take first of all the wholesale stocks. According to the latest Digest, Table 151, the total stocks of men's, womens', and children's wear in percentages are 184 as against 100 in 1942. They are almost double. If we turn to supplies for the home market, we find—and I am quoting in millions—that in men's and youths' wear the supplies of pullovers and cardigans rose from 0.19 in 1944 to 0.50 this year; and that in women's and maids' jumpers and cardigans supplies rose from 0.50 in 1944 to

0.96 this year; and that supplies of women's and maids' vests increased in the same period from 1.32 to 1.94, and that supplies of knickers and pants went up from 1.63 to 2.24. In children's outerwear and underwear we see the same upward trend; supplies of outerwear rose from 1.38 in 1944 to 1.84 this year, and supplies of underwear from 2.24 to 2.89. And so on. Hon. Members can see for themselves the figures of stocks and supplies available to the home trade, and they can see how they have been steadily increasing.
I should like to point this out. I know that clothes rationing applies not only to clothing but to household goods. If we take the sale of wool blankets, of cotton blankets, sheets and towels, we find that in almost every case the supplies available for the home market have almost doubled since 1944. Of course, I admit—and it would be stupid not to—that there are still certain shortages. However, over the whole field the supplies are adequate. Surely, the Minister is not going to keep this clothes rationing scheme on until the supply of every article in it has more than met the demand? Obviously that would not be justified.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. Simmons.]

Mr. Shephard: That is the policy which the Minister is following out. He has admitted that as an article of clothing comes into sufficient supply to meet the demand he will take it off coupons, which rather suggests that he is going to keep the clothes rationing scheme on until the supply of every article is greater than the demand.
I submit that we have now reached the stage when there are sufficient clothes to give everyone his requirements, provided that he can afford to buy them. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted at a luncheon the other day that price was now the most important factor in the sale of goods. I understand, although I have no personal knowledge, that black market coupons which were in the region of 3s. each are now down to 1d. or 2d. each. That again is a very significant factor. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman


that unless he can prove that this system is still essential, we cannot afford to retain it in view of the waste of manpower involved.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking to the T.U.C. in August, said that we had no more manpower available to increase our production. We on these benches do not agree with him. We think that there is a lot of manpower in this country which is being wastefully used, and I believe that today the clothes rationing scheme is an outstanding example of that. I know of firms in the clothing trade where 10 per cent. of the clerical staff are employed solely in dealing with this coupon scheme. The Secretary of the National Association of Outfitters estimated that we were spending 10 million man-hours operating the clothes rationing scheme. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to give figures of the number of people engaged in his Department on this scheme—I dare say that they amount to a few hundreds —but on the most conservative reckoning there must be an enormous amount of labour tied up in factories, warehouses, shops and Government offices, and I think that the Minister must justify the retention of the scheme.
Let me give him the point of view of the trade and I say that the trade is in the best position to speak knowledgeably of this matter. On 1st November, a committee representing all the clothing and drapery trades submitted a memorandum to the President, and they stated in the most emphatic terms their conviction that clothes rationing could safely be abolished without any damage to the public interest at the end of the current rationing period. They also stated that during the last 18 months it had become clear that what now limits expenditure on clothes is the money in the pockets and not the coupons in the books. They claim that most of the population have more coupons in relation to the goods that they wish to purchase than money to pay for them. They went on to make what I thought was a most important statement. They said that the legalising of loose coupons or the use of loose coupons made it easy for anyone to transfer coupons to another person, and thereby defeated the whole object of the scheme which was to ensure a fair share to everyone; that while in 1941 the clothes rationing scheme was

proper and necessary, its continuance today meant the misuse of manpower. Finally, they claimed that if the scheme were abandoned tomorrow there would be no rush to buy, and after a day or two shopping would become quite normal.
That is my case. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen very carefully to the claims put forward by the trade. I would emphasise that they really are in a position to know whether this scheme can be abandoned or not. They have faithfully carried it out since 1941; they have made no complaints; but they have come to the conclusion now that this scheme is redundant. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take his courage in both hands and declare to this House that this is the last period for clothes coupons, and that at the end of the period the scheme will be abandoned.

10.6 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I should like to begin by referring to a point made by the hon. Gentleman when he said that, after it had been stated last week that a bonfire of controls was to take place some people expected that clothes rationing would be on that bonfire. I should say that when I made reference to the forthcoming quite modest little bonfire, I specifically said that there was no question of abolishing clothes rationing, or of anything of a similar kind being on that bonfire, so that if people expected that, I cannot plead guilty to having misled them.
I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has treated this subject. It is not quite so simple or straightforward as he suggested, nor are the arguments quite so much on one side as he suggested. However, I should like to thank him for the fact that, for once, this subject has tonight been treated quite free from any party issues. The hon. Gentleman has looked at it as a straight and most important problem. I quite agree with him about the intense desirability of getting rid of clothes rationing, for all the reasons he mentioned, as soon as is possible, but I should remind the House of the background against which this question of clothes rationing policy must be examined.
I am anxious, as I have said, to end rationing as soon as possible. It was a war-time expedient to provide fair shares


of clothing at a time when our textile industries were being cut down in size, and when huge demands for textiles for the Services had to be fulfilled. Looking back, I do not think that any hon. Member on any side of the House tonight would say that the clothes rationing scheme had been unnecessary. I think we should agree that it has been pretty successful; and, like the hon. Gentleman, I should like to add my tribute to the way in which the trade has faithfully co-operated in the operation of the rationing scheme thoroughout. But it is, of course—and we fully regard it in this way—a temporary scheme, and we all want to get rid of it.
The question which we must ask ourselves tonight is whether this is the time to get rid of the scheme. Looking at the position in the shops at the moment—and I think the hon. Gentleman has been looking at the position in the shops—the hon. Gentleman might be tempted to think it was not surprising that retailers generally are pressing for the abolition of clothes rationing. The retailers say—and they are only saying what we on this side of the House and on this Front Bench, have been saying for some months—that it is money and not coupons which is holding back a very large proportion of the people from increasing their purchases at this time.
I think that is fairly generally true; but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that people are buying clothes, and buying them on a very considerable scale at the present moment. Trade in clothing shops at the moment is very brisk—much more brisk than it was a year ago, in spite of the degree of disinflation which has undoubtedly been making itself felt during the past few months. When the hon. Gentleman sees the figures for October —I have not seen them yet myself, but the first indications from the trade have been reported to me—he will find that in October, as in September, trade has been very much more brisk than a year ago. It is not true, therefore, that at present people simply are not buying.
It is a fact, as the hon. Gentleman said, that I have received a memorandum from certain sections of the trade pressing for the abolition of rationing. I stress the phrase, "certain sections of the trade," because several times the hon. Member

used the phrase "the trade" as though the trade was united on this question. The hon. Gentleman knows the trade, and he ought to know by this time that the clothing trade is never united on anything. In fact, I was taken severely to task yesterday afternoon, in a discussion with the clothing industry about this most desirable development council which it should have, for using the phrase "clothing industry." It was made quite plain to me by certain people in that industry that, in fact, it was not one but several industries. Therefore, it is a little misleading, when we are talking about the distributive side, to talk of the trade as though it were a single unit and united even on this question of clothes rationing.
The trade, in fact, is very much divided on this matter of the immediate abolition of clothes rationing. I do not think it is unfair to say that it is more divided now than it was last May, when the pressure for the removal of clothes rationing really began. Leading figures in the trade have recently gone on record, in public statements and speeches, against the immediate removal of clothes rationing.
Let us now consider the main points which should be in our minds. Getting rid of rationing depends fundamentally on two things: the volume of production and the volume of exports. Since the end of the war textile production has increased, and that increase is continuing. It has been welcomed by hon. Members on all sides of the House. But, at the same time, we have had to build up our textile exports because, of course, as the House well knows—and we have debated this subject several times during the past year—textiles are goods which we can sell now to dollar-earning and dollar-saving markets, and we are looking to continued exports of textiles in the future to help us to pay our way; so that it is vital to hold and develop our markets as rapidly as possible at this present time. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the 1949 export target for the cotton industry, for instance, has been raised even higher than the 1948 figure.
The success of our export drive so far has been encouraging, apart from difficulties caused by import restrictions in some markets abroad on wool cloth and on clothing. Although production has increased, exports have increased


still more than production, so we ire getting less of some kinds of cloth on the home market now than we were getting a year ago—considerably less, in fact. This is the main point which I want to stress.
The hon. Gentleman gave us some figures. Perhaps he will forgive me if I give one or two more figures to illustrate the point I am making. If we take supplies of woven non-wool—mainly cotton and rayon—cloth in May, June, July and August a year ago, the total supplies for the home market were 204 million square yards. In the same month of this year they were 178 million square yards—some 13 per cent. less. Supplies of cloth of this type to the home market, in fact, are at a very low level compared with the past two or three years. In the same period wool cloth supplies have fallen from 80 million to 68 million square yards, a reduction of some 15 per cent. Cloth supplies have been falling, and that means less garments for a time.
While this fall has been taking place in the supply of cloth for the home market, what has been happening to the position of the wholesale and retail distributors? I do not need to emphasise the fact of the very considerable time-lag between the production of cloth and the appearance of the garments in the shops. Supplies of finished clothing in the shops this year have been bigger than last year, a fact which is due to last year's relatively good cloth supplies and which I have recognised by making available additional coupons, by down-pointing certain goods, and, indeed, by removing certain goods from the ration altogether. Retailers' sales in terms of money have risen. At the same time retailers stocks increased very slightly in September.
All this, of course, makes part of this slightly misleading picture of plenty on the home front, which is presented to us by certain interests. But it is not enough merely to look at the stocks in the hands of retailers; we have to look at the pipelines behind them, the pipelines which feed the retailers with clothing. Here the picture is distinctly less rosy. If we take the volume of wholesalers' stocks, which in May reached the figure of 152, taking the average sales in July, 1947, as 100, it has fallen in the following way. It was 152 in May, at the time when there was great pressure for the removal of ration-

ing and when I did make certain rationing changes; 142 at the end of June; 144 at the end of July; 131 at the end of August, and 116 at the end of September—a very marked fall in the volume of goods in the wholesalers' pipeline.

Mr. Shephard: From what is the right hon. Gentleman quoting? I gave certain figures of wholesale stocks which are quite different from the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given.

Mr. Wilson: I am sorry I cannot give the source of the figures, but I think they were supplied by the Wholesale Textile Association. I shall be glad to ascertain the exact source and let the hon. Member know.

Mr. Shephard: The only information which hon. Members have is that in the Monthly Digest of Statistics, which surely is authoritative.

Mr. Wilson: The figures I have quoted are in the possession of hon. Members and I should be glad to compare them with those given by the hon. Member and let him know the reason for the point he has made.

Mr. Jennings: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that if my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) is quoting from a monthly schedule of figures and he is quoting from another set of figures, it would have been better to make the figures public? Then, perhaps, this demand for de-rationing might not have been brought forward.

Mr. Wilson: I have just said that the figures are available to hon. Members. They are published in the Board of Trade Journal, from which I took them, and there is no question of misleading the House or the public by giving figures which are not available; these figures are available.

Mr. Shephard: This is a most important matter. My case has been based on rising stocks, and now the Minister is telling us that, according to his information from the Wholesale Textile Association, stocks have been dropping every month. If I may quote from the Monthly Digest of Statistics at the end of August, the last monthly figures published, the figure was 184. That was


certainly a drop from the previous month when it was 195, but that 195 was the highest figure ever attained, and there had been a continuous increase until the end of August.

Mr. Wilson: I can certainly explain why the figures are different. The figures from the Monthly Digest used by the hon. Member, take as their base the period of 1942, whereas the figures I am using take as their base the period of 1947. Certainly there was a fall between July and August and a further fall in September, which I believe is not available in the Monthly Digest; whatever basis is used, my figures will be confirmed. From the figures which I have just given, I think the hon. Member will agree that the really significant fall was in the month of September. We have all been watching the month of September very carefully. That was the month in which the new coupons came into operation, and it was the first time that the new pointing values for many clothes were introduced. In the month of September, trade was very brisk and while retailers' stocks have risen very slightly, wholesalers' stocks have fallen very considerably indeed.

Mr. McCorquodale: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman is the most eminent statistician of His Majesty's Government, cannot he make his influence felt so that statistics given by different Government Departments are on the same basis of comparison?

Mr. Wilson: I am touched by the right hon. Gentleman's kind remarks. Of course, I am at a disadvantage when figures are quoted from a well-known source and I have not the figures in front of me. As I have said, there are two reasons—one that 1947, instead of 1942, is the basis, and secondly, one set of figures are given in terms of volume and the other figures in terms of value. There was a significant falling off in stocks in September, which is of great importance to any consideration of this matter. The picture given—and I think confirmed by the trade—is one of increased purchases by the public, increased purchases by the retailers, and falling wholesale stocks and falling supplies of cloth in the garment industry. Therefore, in such a situation I do

not think any of us would be justified in leaping to the conclusion that rationing has outlived its usefulness.
As I have said, the time cycle of production from spinning the yarn to retailing the cloth is long. It varies greatly for different kinds of clothing. It is essential therefore that our policy should be flexible. We have gone a good way in recent months. I know that to retailers who have large stocks it is irksome to collect coupons, and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about a loss of manpower which might otherwise be productive, if, of course, it did not get lost in some other section of the distributive trade. I do not know how far the hon. Gentleman would like us to direct that labour into more productive activity. I am confident that those retailers to whom I have referred, and who have co-operated so well, are going to see this thing through to the end. In the longer run the outlook is un-doubtedly encouraging. Production is improving. Production of cotton yarn is 14 per cent. above 1947. Rayon yarn and staple fibre output in September was a record for all time. Wool cloth production in September was the highest figure since the end of the war.
On the question of when rationing should end, the advice I get from the trade is very far from being unanimous. This committee representing the distributors is pressing me to abolish rationing at the end of February. They have sent me the memorandum referred to by the hon. Gentleman and this memorandum is being considered by the two advisory committees representing the manufacturers, on the one hand, and the distributors and housewives, on the other, which I set up following my statement in the House last May. I do not know what advice I shall get, but I shall consider it very seriously indeed, not only because of the width of interests covered in those committees but, because of the high quality of the persons on those committees.
Traders are not at the moment speaking with one voice on this matter. Distributors, whose stocks are good, are pressing for the abolition of rationing. Manufacturers, who are experiencing the fall in cloth supplies, are very much more guarded in their comments
.


Perhaps if I give the House one illustration it might make this point a little clearer. Much of the pressure for coupon changes this year was based on the relatively heavy stocks of women's outerwear. Special coupon changes were made as well as new pointing arrangements, while certain things were taken off the ration altogether.
These changes were designed to shift these stocks and stocks of one or two other goods in abundant supply in the shops. I asked the trade to clear stocks by half-coupon and half-price sales, which they did to a large extent. By and large, these measures have been effective, but recently when I met an important section of the women's outerwear trade, the main point put to me had nothing to do with coupons at all. They were not pressing for further coupon concessions, but for me to increase supplies of cloth, especially utility cloth, for this section of the trade. The position in that particular trade has become much more difficult from the point of view of cloth supplies, and certainly some of those who not very long ago were pressing for the immediate derationing of clothing are being much more guarded at the present time.
I have given the House an outline of the position we have reached. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity, and I am sorry that I have not been able to give a clearer or more definite answer. As regards the future, the policy of the Government will continue to be—and I am sure everyone in the House will agree with it—to ensure the maximum exports we can possibly make available from textiles and from clothing. Whatever is done in the field of rationing policy, nothing must interfere with this aim of priority of exports. The home market will get the remainder, and the size of this remainder will depend on the level of production, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, on the degree of success which our exporters achieve. Exports must come first. After that, as soon as we can be sure that home supplies, present and prospective—those in the pipeline as well as those in the shops —are reasonably adequate to meet unrationed demand for clothing generally, then rationing will go, and no one will be more happy than myself to see the end of it.

Mr. Jennings: Will the President of the Board of Trade explain to me how it is, if there has been heavy buying over September and October, as he suggested, that retailers' stocks are still so heavy?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I should have thought the answer was very obvious. The retailers who saw this heavy buying coming and who saw evidence of it during September were putting heavier demands on wholesalers than before, and that is why, during the period when buying by the public has increased so much, retailers' stocks, nevertheless, increased slightly more and the whole brunt was taken by the wholesalers' stocks.

Mr. Shephard: I would like the right hon. Gentleman, before he sits down, to clear up one point. I am very worried that he is intending to operate this system of clothes rationing until the supply of every article is equal to the demand. He has already, by his action a week or two ago, rather suggested those are the lines on which he is going to work. Does it mean—and I would like an answer to this because it is important —that he is going to take off the ration from time to time those articles of clothing which are in ample supply, and is he going to wait until every article is in ample supply before he abolishes the scheme?

Mr. Wilson: I will try to answer that. I think it is a fair question. I did announce some time ago that it was my policy as far as possible to take whole blocks right out of the ration field because that is the best way of saving manpower, rather than meeting the position by putting more coupons into the system. It is better to take out whole blocks, like shoes, for example, which have by and large a separate industry and distributive trade, in order to release coupon staffs in that particular industry. But certainly it is not my policy to keep on rationing in general until the very last vestige of shortage in the very last item of clothing is removed.
In fact, it would not be possible to do it. So long as we are leaving plenty of coupons in the hands of the public, if we were to have more and more items out of the field of rationing, then, towards the end, rationing would end itself, because people would have more coupons


than there were goods in the shops to buy. So that there is no question of failure
of policy in that direction. I would be the first to admit that at the present time there are certain items which are very short, even with the full rationing scheme. That is necessarily so, I think it will be admitted, when it is so

essential to export large quantities of certain of these goods to dollar areas. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the answer that he wanted.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.